We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Some people fall for it every time

This is an April Fool:

Scotland to switch to driving on the right if independence given green light

This is not:

‘Cinderella Law’ to stop emotional abuse of children: Parents who fail to show love could face prison

9 comments to Some people fall for it every time

  • Sigivald

    In a sane world, those would be reversed.

  • First it was trolls, now evil step-mothers! Who will be next? Giants? Wizards?

  • Jerry

    I am going to keep saying this as often and as many places as possible –

    The elites in government will control EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR ENTIRE LIFE if allowed to do so.
    They KNOW what’s best for you, you children, your pets, EVERYONE & EVERYTHING.

    The key word above as well as the solution is in the word ‘allowed’. Interpret that as you see fit !!!

  • CaptDMO

    Emotional abuse.
    I guess that falls under the Domestic violence penumbra.
    It’s for the children.
    That’s not gonna’ affect ones concealed carry permit status in England is it?
    Does “the state” get to immediately assign custody to someone “more appropriate”?
    Any “emotional abuser” registries, or “protected” zones?
    What is the male quota on “panels” determining the distinction between “emotional” abuse, Parental discipline, or Failure to buy princess a pony?
    SEE: The Full Monty

  • Richard

    I thought putting people in prison was “an expensive way to make bad people worse”. Aren’t they afraid that if they take, say, a fork-lift driver or a chartered accountant and put him inside for a couple of years he’ll come out shaven-headed, covered in tattoos and an expert in burglary, credit card fraud and benefit cheating? If not, why not?

  • RRS

    Do you suppose this will be written to apply to those responsible for children “taken into care;” and how far UP the chain of responsibilities should it go?

  • Zarba

    I can guarantee that no one is the halls of power will be affected. Only the little people.

  • Nick BTF! Gray

    This reminds me of an episode in ‘Ab Fab’, where one character says to her mother, “I’m going to a regression hypnotherapist! I’ll get something on you yet!”
    Who will decide how much love is enough?

  • Barry Sheridan

    Reading this comment made me wonder how the State will assess the correct amount of love. Of course people in government and its associated bureaucracies are infinitely superior to us ordinary folk, but even so, defining love, umm tricky. One thought that came to mind here is how about parents who work all the time, either through choice or necessity. As they are never there and if they are exhaustion might dominates then perhaps a spell in prison will improve matters for the child, after all if you are absent for whatever reason you cannot be giving love. Or perhaps I am wrong, could it be that money is the redeemer. After all these days money solves everything, or at least that is the impression I get from hearing the constant refrain that whatever the problem more money seems to be the answer. So will we now define love in terms of funding, give child A several hundred pounds a week and they are loved, while child B existing on a few tens is deprived and unloved! Are the designers of this policy nuts. They sound like it.