• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Making you safer – by barging into your home

There are reports today that the government wants to send health and safety inspectors into the homes of households with under-15's; under the auspices of preventing indoor accidents.

Inspectors The National Institute of Clinical Excellence or 'NICE' have found that a million accidental injuries happen to children at home each year 'and many are preventable'.

According to the Daily Mail:

NICE's draft guidelines call for inspections of home safety to be carried out by trained staff from the NHS or councils. Officials would identify homes where children are thought to be most at risk of accidents and 'offer home risk assessments'.

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.

So, once again we are faced with new legislation that increases the prospect of state inspectors entering our homes. It starts as a consensual decision; then those that refuse are blackmarked; and it ends up with the inspectors barging into your home unannounced at 3am.

This is nanny-statism at its very worst. The home has always held little dangers and potential accidents since you and I were children. Why is it now that the government feels it necessary to waste time and money, whilst trampling our privacy, sending their agents into our houses to try and wipe them out?

By Dylan Sharpe  

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Council snooping
  • Mr. Jameson

    “Officials would identify homes where children are thought to be most at risk of accidents”
    Based on what criteria, and who decides?
    Something like this would perhaps be an idea if it were offered as a voluntary information service along the lines of Fire Prevention or Crime Prevention, but not as framed in these proposals.
    And I note that there’s no mention of what happens if, upon a ‘return visit’, the safety devices have been removed.
    More nonsense.

  • http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com Faustiesblog

    This is far more sinister than nanny statism.
    This measure comes from the EU, by the way. It is a means of:
    * collecting more data on homes for the EU’s mega surveillance database;
    * getting more people CRBed (inspectors);
    * putting the state between parent and child (as with spanking, not intelligent enough to be a mother … etc).
    * getting people used to accepting intrusion by the state, because this is the thin and fluffy end of the wedge;
    * collecting info on how “well off” people are.
    The last point, Labour’s been trying to effect for years for the purpose of confiscating ‘excess’ wealth by way of tax. It started with HIPs, followed by bailiffs’ rights to enter your home.
    Even Pravda recognises that the EU is based on the USSR template.
    http://bit.ly/GYKIT

  • http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com Faustiesblog

    The Daily Mail has removed this article now. I can’t even find a cached version.
    Must’ve upset someone at the Home Office. Alan Johnson’s not having a good week, is he!

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a57e35a3970b Dylan Sharpe

    Faustie – I too can no longer find the story. We’re looking into it and trying to find out whether the problem was in the veracity of the original leak or if the Mail has been silenced.

  • http://adamcollyer.wordpress.com Adam Collyer

    Found it. Please see here http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=download&o=46008. Question remains why the Daily Mail pulled this story.

  • http://adamcollyer.wordpress.com Adam Collyer

    Sorry. Link broken. Try this one http://guidance.nice.org.uk/PHG/Wave18/1

  • http://thefourthplace.net Simon Gibbs

    A couple of things are worth knowing about this:
    1. the scheme is based on “data-rape”. Recommendation 1 deals with identifying bad parents, whichs leads to 2 and 3 (of 3) which deal with acting on the leads generated. Recommendation 1 consists of re-using data originally collected for other purposes without mentioning the major project that would need to be undertaken to obtain proper consent in accordance with the data protection act. In addition any civil servant visiting your home is encourged to report on you. Eveything in the document rests on this basic violation of trust.
    2. the only real “risk factor” identified is the socioeconomic class of the parent. Other factors such are mentioned but these look like secondary factors affecting
    economic status indirectly. Class is hugely influential, in fact it seems from http://j.mp/1ru0hv which is data cited in the report that 11% fewer children would die in accidents if long term unemployed were working.
    A wealthier and more capable society is what we need, but this measure spends our tax money and infantilises parents.

  • lfa

    the d. bags at CPS allowed my wife to take my children and refuse to allow them to visit until I take some phoney baloney crap classes and let them inspect my dwelling. the worthless attorney I hired told me i would just have to “play their game” and “jump through their hoops.” his name is Samual Sanchez and he is employed Cordell and Cordell in Ft Worth. DO NOT use Cordell and Cordell. Thank you