Talk:Harwoods and Harebreaks

Godwin's Law
Whilst Watford Council seem to have overstepped the bounds here the whole Hitler thing is a little overdone. We live in a world where Daily Mail readers scream blue murder about 'Why was nothing done to stop paedophiles stalking our kids at these play centres' when an incident happens and over reaction by the authorities is the result. This has so many echoes with the child abuse scandals of the late 70's and early 80's where children were taken from their parents on the flimsiest of pretexts - for the sake of the kiddies.

However, comparing this with totalitarian states is equally outrageous. If you don't like the policy don't take your kids there - this is an option that was not available at Dachau etc. Equally the people imposing these rules can be voted out at the next election - again an option not available under totalitarian regimes. As such the comparisons are invalid and detract from the argument. Bob Soles 15:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm removing the picture again. Researcher 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point that this is part of an extension of state control about which there will be no choice. Fox 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmm. why not a picture of Mau Mau detainees, then? Or South African women and children in British concentration camps? Or the Amritsar massacre. Keep it all country-relevant. RaoulDuke 15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also a necessity for PD. Fox 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox, there's enough wrong with the situation in and of itself. It doesn't need a Holocaust reference. Don't discredit your own valuable and valid argument with stupidity that will do nothing but make it look like crankery. Don't be an asshole about this. RaoulDuke 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the childish ranting and holocaust references detract from the real issues. 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Paranoia
Can this article drop the paranoia about state control? It's just overreaction to over-hyped fear of paedophiles - that's it. The entire thing still reads like a paranoid rant rather than an article that's supposed to address the situation with rational discourse. And yes, drop the picture. 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it paranoia when it is actually happening? How is it paranoia when it is part of the legislature? Maybe you should remove head from ass and take a look at what is actually happening with the new guildelines and regulations regarding children/education/CRB etc this year instead of getting your panties in a twist because YEC nuts don't want to believe in evolution. Fox 15:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this having my head in my ass? This is a different interpretation of what's happening. You say it's all the boogie man of the state wanting to control people, I'm saying it's knee-jerking it to fear of paedophiles, which is frankly much more likely. 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox, this website represents a community of viewpoints. Until somebody else agrees with you, stop going against the arguments of everyone else expressing an opinion. RaoulDuke 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, in other words, "There are more people arguing my side than yours, so shut up." 06:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously
I agree the decision from the council was idiotic, but can we please drop the paranoid bullshit? I've provided a ref that caused one sentence to be deleted, then another that led me to delete an entire paragraph. This site is supposed to be better than making Hitler comparisons. Seriously. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that you are missing the point. IF this was an isolated incident, paranoia might be a fair accusation. See also Independent Safeguarding Authority. You obviously are not keeping up to date with what is actually going on. The Watford Council decision was merely a pre-emptive application of the legislation that is being phased in over the next few years. If you cannot be bothered to read the news, it is hardly surprising that you cannot see why comparisons with totalitarian states are being - justly - made. Fox 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware this isn't an isolated incident and I'm just as worried as you obviously are that this kind of crap is becoming more and more prevalent. Where we disagree is that you obviously think this is all down to some central unit that's coordinating everything. I think it's councils either being massively overcautious or massively stupid. Bringing in Hitler at this point doesn't help anybody. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the government is not a "central" and "coordinating" unit, then just what is it?? "Councils" - overcautious or otherwise - did not introduce the ISA. Neither did they introduce any of the 3500 other pieces of new legislation we have seen since 1997. Government policy is the source. Labour has instilled an endemic culture of suspicion in Britain. Labour is behind the new databases that either "leech personal information from each one of us or require innocent members of the public to go through an endless rigmarole of proving themselves to the state." The Government has ruled that we are incapable of managing our lives and must be watched and regulated by civil servants from dawn to dusk, cradle to grave. Incidentally, your providing "a ref that caused one sentence to be deleted" is meaningless in the context in which you place that claim. Somebody other than me placed the snarky statement that removing kids from parents was a good idea - I asked for the ref purely to disprove the point being made, which I already knew to be fallacious, deliberately misleading and insulting. Fox 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * THIS government is a collection of headless chickens running around aimlessly while trying to formulate policy according to the letters and editorial pages of tabloid newspapers. Look at the recent U-turns / evasions on expenses, the territorial army, ID cards, drugs and this. The consequences of the ISA (those two WPCs that were threatened with legal action for looking after each other's kids was a great one) are only being realised now because the government were too incompetent to spot them at the time. I'll agree that the government resembles a foolish chap with a toothbrush moustache, but it's Charlie Chaplin rather than Adolf Hitler. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 05:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The current government in the U.K. has been in power altogether too long; a housecleaning is in order. 06:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'm not so sure the Tories will be any better. They're trying to be nice and fluffy at the moment but they'll revert to type soon enough - just look at the furore over the Lisbon Treaty. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The objective of the housecleaning would not be to alter the government's political program, but to keep the legislators and cabinet on their toes. Some of these laws they have been bringing in recently seem fairly heavy-handed. 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(reset)"a collection of headless chickens running around aimlessly while trying to formulate policy according to the letters and editorial pages of tabloid newspapers." Far from it. The ISA, for example, is the result of three years of concerted effort by the ministers, consultants and "experts" involved. This is not the result of editorial pressure from red tops, this is the fruit of the ideology of New Labour and the hard left which has steadily moved to increase the centralised power of the state at the expense of the individual. "The consequences" are not some unforeseen, regrettable by-product; it has always been the goal of the hard left to prevent people from expressing themselves, from moving about freely and unobserved, from pursuing their chosen careers and acting upon their religious and political convictions. How many of these rights - which have all been removed since 1997 - can you possibly say were superfluous to our society: How many of these reversals of our rights can you seriously expect us to believe are the "unforeseen consequences" of a "Chaplinesque" government? Hearsay is now admissible evidence in court while free speech is being legislated out of existence by use of public order laws. Free individuals are not allowed to demonstrate within one kilometre of the "Mother of Parliaments". You say, "Look at the recent U-turns / evasions on expenses, the territorial army, ID cards, drugs and this." Firstly, ID cards have not been shelved. As for the other trifles you mention, I say so what? The TA thing was a budget issue. Evasions on expenses... well, we've yet to see any real reform, and no MP has been charged with fraud. I dare say, nobody ever will be. Drugs? I'm not really sure what u-turns you refer to. A slight reshuffling of this or that's ranking in the schedules is of no odds to the vast majority. These are all tinsel and tat, window dressing to divert attention. It is obviously working in some quarters. Meanwhile, the government introduced the Civil Contingency Act which empowers ministers to make virtually any provision without reference to parliament. What about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which allows ministers to bypass parliament, transfer authority to themselves and their officials, and was deliberately designed in such a way that ministers can use it to modify the Act itself, further extending its powers, without scrutiny or redress to Parliament? You say that that these are unintended consequences, that the kafkaesque situation we are heading into is the result of the government being "too incompetent to spot them at the time". I say the only apparent confusion is caused by the government's inability to tell the truth about legislation before it is foisted upon us. ID cards - depending on the day of the week, they are intended to prevent ID theft, or combat terrorism, or fight illegal immigration, or better enable access to benefits or services. Its pretty obvious what they are intended for... And once they are here, people can bleat all they like about how this or that wasn't intended. But the cards and the national database behind them will be here and it will be far too late to do anything about it. Anybody who seriously thinks that the next Parliament will undo any of these... "reforms" is kidding themself. Parliaments do not strip themselves of inherited power: they will either maintain the status quo or further extend their reach.
 * the right to trial by jury
 * the right to silence
 * the right not to be punished until a court has decided that the law has been broken
 * the right to demonstrate and protest
 * the presumption of innocence
 * the right to private communication
 * the right to travel without surveillance?

You see Charlie Chaplin. I don't see anybody laughing, except perhaps the government. Fox 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, most of those rights either still exist except in narrow cases or were taken away before the Brown administration got in. For instance, the Right to Silence was abolished by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, so it was a John Major change. Saying it's the left that wants to centralise power is to ignore the massive, planned assault on local government that was undertaken by the Thatcher regime. While the moves made by Labour to restore local democracy have been pretty poor, there have at least BEEN some (elected mayors, for instance). They also set up parliaments in Wales and Scotland - the biggest devolution of power since Irish Home Rule.


 * In any case, I'm not going to argue about all your list. I was talking purely about the ISA and the unintended consequences of that. Whatever discussion there had been before the act was obliterated in a mad rush to get it on the statute book - a rush caused almost entirely by external pressure.


 * I agree with you in that I'm sickened by the way in which our rights and freedoms are being eroded, but Pa Broon isn't the one doing it. He can't even work out what type of biscuit he likes. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic and religious information
I had a read through the form, and noticed the ethnic and religious questions. I don't see how they're relevant, since the only reason I can see would be to cater to specific religious or language needs, but that's surely something they could just ask parents to explain to the wardens. I submitted feedback, questioning the need for such information to be solicited, and on submission of my feedback I was presented with another page asking me about my ethnic background and religious beliefs. Is this just Watford being bonkers, or a nore general nationwide obsession with racial profiling? -- 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When they put that down, it's basically for monitoring "diversity" or whatever they call it. It may be useless and irrelevant to the subject itself, but they use it to basically provide evidence that they're not discriminating on racial grounds. Since Stephen Lawrence, every institution in the UK is absolutely paranoid about it, and thus, they track down data on the ethnicity and religious upbringing of everyone they take data on to make sure that they're not. You'd imagine that if they didn't take the data then there'd be no way for them to actually discriminate, but they need the stats for "proof" as it were - I'd probably blame the newspapers for crying racism at every oppotunity. 17:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the argument that it's easier to avoid discrimination if you don't know know their ethnicity or religion is a good one. In order to try to make things fair, they just perpetuate these differences between us. -- 11:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
How long did the ban last - given and ? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No more!
The parks closed in 2016. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Vivisectionist / talk / contribs
 * The link says they were coming back in Spring 2017 though. Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)