It is often in the name of cultural integrity as well as social stability and national security that democratic reforms based on human rights are resisted by authoritarian governments. - Aung San Suu Kyi

Or, indeed, that reforms ignoring civil liberties and running contrary to the path we've been taking as a nation are so readily pondered by authoritarian governments. I do wonder how many more times I'll have to keep writing about the illiberal nature of the Home Office led by Jacqui Smith, it almost seems fantastical just how much one person can contemplate and implement in such a short time span. Today we are adding to the ever increasing list of authoritarian practice with the logical extension of where she is going with the current clampdown on under age drinking, as well as subtly not-quite-announcing plans for a what I can only satirically describe as a thought crime unit. (Heads up to Dizzy for that)

So, kids, they're given the illusion of being taken seriously. Talk of lowering the voting age to 16 and support for the Youth Parliament scheme is very positive. But congregate in groups or bus stops (like, say, when you're catching a bus as a keen A* student?), wear clothing that threatens the oldies with connotations they didn't prescribe to them, even think about doing something that is completely legal for them to do with their parents permission, and suddenly they're forced in to education until 18, slapped with ASBOs rather than support and now they'll also be rather disproportionately tarred for life with a pointless criminal record.

I've said it once and I'm sure I'll have opportunity to say it many times more, parents are by and large happy for their children, who by and large ARE NOT binge drinking on the streets, to have a bit of alcohol now and then. But rather than listen to the parental prerogative Jacqui Smith and the home office are mulling over a suggestion to criminalise the legal act of drinking "under age", to the extent of fining those in possession and potentially making that a mark on their criminal record.

Now, let's get this straight. Not only are we talking here mainly about kids in areas that have no clear support and no amenities or services to occupy their time, but using the assumption that kids that fall foul of becoming binge drinkers at a young age are at best under immense social pressure over and above their emotional and inner strength, and at worst are kids already abandoned by their family units and in the lowest socio-economic bracket we are also essentially talking about some of the most vulnerable in society too. Let's not kid ourselves that just because some scally can intimidate you as you walk into a convenience store that they are "strong" in any real sense of the word

And the answer to tackle this unfortunate part of society? A part of society that is reducing in number but increasing in severity of consequence? Further criminalisation, further vilification, no resources or support actually given by anyone the government has real power to abdicate to, a casting out from society. It would seem it is Home Office policy to take those few "problem" children and further run them in to the gutter, to take the children of dysfunctional and poor families, as well as those with a clear peer-attention issue, and to actually say "you're not good enough and you never will be", firmly securing them in their caste and making sure that they stay there.

Now, about this new plan to spend £20mil over 3 years to implement a system of "multi-agency interventions and information sharing, involving local police, local councils, voluntary groups and health workers, across the country to manage and identify people at risk of committing serious violence as well as providing support for victims"

It would seem that not content with making sure you fully realise that you're a child until you're 18, complete with ASBO's, community contracts and criminal records for holding a can of lager, they're also going to use a cross-agency database to work out from all of the information they're gathering on us who is a risk to society and who isn't. At best I can only hope that those of us that are deemed to be a "risk" only get monitored illiberally for the rest of our life, but part of me fears that some kind of contract of expectation is on it's way for those in society that fall in to this demographic, criminalising people before they even commit a crime.

And will it stop there? Perhaps in light of the new and ridiculous "Sarah's Law" trials this will lead to a full systemic breakdown of everyone we encounter. No longer will counter-productive CRB checks be the way of vetting new teachers, no it will be a CRB followed by a Paedophile check and then, just for kicks, we'll also deem you suitable depending on whether or not we can ascertain from your social status and DNA just how likely you are to be unpalatable to the community around you.

Perhaps I'm just getting a bit paranoid, however it was only 6 months ago that the worst the government had to offer to us on this front was an illiberal 42 day detention that barely 10% of respondents to a compass survey think would be beneficial. I honestly couldn't have even imagined the stuff that Jacqui Smith and her team are now coming out with, so perhaps now is the time to start getting paranoid and jump to conclusions in case things we don't even know to fear yet become the policy points of the next 6 months to come?

People at the moment are going on about how Alistair Darling should be losing his job, typical pomp and theatre from Westminster that is only heard so readily because it is a condemnation of the Prime Minister by proxy. The real calls for someone's head should be for that of Jacqui Smith's, a woman who is taking things too far and is actually in the process of creating some of the most vile and despicable policy that I've heard in this country in modern times.