You may not be paranoid

[Ursa major]

Ever thought you were being watched, but thought it was paranoia? Think again:

Look Whos Stalking (from Bournemouth Echo)

Creepy, or what?

[Overread]

They did all that to find out if they were living in the right catchment area?
Unless the family has two homes I would have thought that the address was all that was needed for that kind of enquiry - not all that.

I wonder if there is anything else in this that we are not getting at - though with 6 other similar incidents in the year one wonders who the snoop in the council is?

[Ursa major]

To give a bit of background information, Parkstone is in Poole Unitary Authority; Westbourne is in Bournemouth Unitary Authority. I don't know exactly where the two properties are, but Parkstone and Westbourne are adjoining suburbs so, in theory, the two houses may only be a few streets away from each other.

The fact is, though, that while education is a local authority responsibility, it is mostly funded by the central government block grant. And we do have an almost national education system - well, we did before the current government decided it wanted to create umpteen different types of state-funded independant schools - and isn't funding supposed to follow the child (rather than spooks employed by the council)?

[Vladd67]

The stupid thing was it was after the councils deadline so by council rules was irrelevant, I hope someone was carpeted for this, but if they were it you can bet it would only be a minor minion not the person really to blame.

[PTeppic]

It would seem that there was more than one family involved.
According to today's BBC News update, three families were monitored, with two of them having their school places withdrawn as a result....

[Ursa major]

The latest on this from the local paper:

Town Has The Right To Snoop By Law (from Bournemouth Echo)

We'll Carry On Spying (from Bournemouth Echo)

[Dave]

Yesterday, I just dismissed this a alarmist, but there is much more today about it in the Saturday newspapers. Apparently, 1000 applications for covert surveillance were made in the last year. This was an anti-terror law, and potentially your phone calls can be tapped and emails intercepted, yet the majority of these applications are for school place applications, dog fowling, litter louts and other minor misdemeanors.

Maybe this should be for another thread, and I have talked about it before here, but when you put it together with the fact that the UK also has more cctv cameras than anywhere else in the world, it does appear that we are sleepwalking into a totalitarian Big Brother state.

[Overread]

Worst part I feel is that more survalance seems to be the only responce we can get out of the law system for increasing safty -- Rubbish. Cameras don't stop crime, just just mean that the criminals wear a hoody (+balaclaver/scarf in cold weather) to hide thier face if they intened on the crime - and if its spontainious - well the crime is commited and the damage already done to the victim - so the camera has not helped there.
To add salt to the wound many of the cameras are of very poor quality - thus if you are a victim there is a good chance that any camera photos of the event are so blurry that nothing will come of them (and yet they can track you and innocent very well with a blurry camera)

Its a painfull cycle we are in as police forces are made smaller and smaller and yet crimes are in no way getting any less .

[kyektulu]

I saw this last night on the news.

At first I thought it was wrong, but upon further thought I think they were well within their rights to do so, bravo to them.

It isnt fair that if you have alot of money you can move borough and get your child into any school that you want, whilst a poor family who have lived in said borough all their lives are forced to go to another school because people with money have pushed them out.

[Overread]

On one hand Kyektulu you have a point, but on the other hand I think this is the wrong choice.
I would prefer that the money - time and resources that went into these stidies of people instead went into solving the direct problem (with regard to schooling) and this is to improve the standard of the school that parents are trying to avoid. That is the real source of the problem here - were the schools equal in quality then parents would not have the pressure to move to try and better thier childrens future (or chances for) so why waste money and earn very bad reputation in a bad move when you can pour money into the school?

[Ursa major]

Actually, they were moving away from the borough whose school they wanted their child to attend. They remained in their original house during the transfer process and only moved once their child had been accepted. (And as far as I can tell, they were open about everything.)

Originally Posted by kyektulu

It isnt fair that if you have alot of money you can move borough and get your child into any school that you want, whilst a poor family who have lived in said borough all their lives are forced to go to another school because people with money have pushed them out.

But no-one investigates when people move house into a catchment area; unless, of course, they are only pretending to move (and there's a blue moon).


I agree with OR. The authorities spend endless hours on coming up with new schemes to control entrance (or change who is responsible for the school) when the problem is the (perceived) quality of some state schools. These should be improved: it's the only way to be fair to all the pupils in this country and the only way to ensure that our population is educated to the standard needed in the modern world.

[Vladd67]

How about this I saw today in the local paper
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...ton.4099404.jp
Yes it is anti social but is an anti terrorist law the right thing to use?

[Ursa major]

It may or may not be right, Vlad. (Some of the uses that this and other, similar, laws are put to will be popular with the general public; the downside of this could be further - and even less justified - use and further laws. I must admit that I'd be happier if a warrant was required; but perhaps it is.)


Whenever a new counter-terrorist law is proposed, someone from the Home Office will appear on the TV or Radio and say that it will only be used in exceptional circumstances. They may even believe this when they say it (though I wouldn't place a bet on that). Trouble is, the decision is usually made by others: council officials and policemen. Or security guards, whose past contacts with the criminal justice system have not been of the kind we'd hope.

[Vladd67]

Surely in the case of a suspected arsonist it is up to the police to investigate not the council. As for the anti social dog owners that were fine 50 pounds for not clearing up after their dogs, how much did the surveillance and investigation cost the council?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

Surely in the case of a suspected arsonist it is up to the police to investigate not the council.

So you'd hope.

Originally Posted by Vladd67

As for the anti social dog owners that were fine 50 pounds for not clearing up after their dogs, how much did the surveillance and investigation cost the council?

It depends if it has the right effect, i.e. scares the wits out of errant dog owners so much that they behave. You and I might agree that this won't happen, and so believe that the cost is not justified.