Underneath the wolf rampant
Sidney and his friend George have brought hammers. Being intellectuals, they borrowed the hammers from working men. They are beating the world into the shape they would like it to be.
Were these hammers the right tools to improve on spheroid? Is it working better now?
Their wolf likes dressing up as something it’s not. Perhaps it has been surgically modified, though badly.
Sidney’s wife, Beatrice, is busy elsewhere. She helped him write of the ISO that it was “impossible to over-rate the importance in the control of industry of this silent but all-pervading determination of processes.”
George had a kindly attitude to preventive, corrective and improvement actions for the social control of his subordinates:
“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.” George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470.
Compliance or death; just as “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la mort” was earlier painted on the walls of the Paris Commune. The ISO has intermittently improved improvement since then.
Tony would have liked to have been their friend.
But he had to make do with some stuff they left behind, the consequences of which are management ISOs for human control.
Professor Alfred Zimmern, holder of the first chair in international politics, “imagined similar processes solving many of the seemingly intractable problems of international governance faced by the failing League of Nations.” A “silent but all-pervading process.”
Theodore Dalrymple wrote of an act of malicious entrapment upon a therapist:
“Medical consultation would not be the only human interaction to suffer if, thanks to modern technology, what might be called the denunciatory stance were to become general, or at any rate sufficiently widespread, in the population. People might start recording everything on the precautionary principle: that is to say, you never know when you might fall out with your neighbour. Better to keep a record of all that he has said to you just in case you need to prove his long-standing malice towards you when the legal case begins.
“Can anything be done to halt a slide into a denunciatory society? The temptation is to look first to the government, and to enquire what legislation might do. For example, it might make the private use of recording devices for purposes of complaint or denunciation illegal, except in cases of conspiracy to commit serious crimes; no professional body or any other organization would be allowed to take into account such evidence. But what counts as serious could easily be manipulated.
“A society in which people are willing and eager to denounce one another is a society that gives a great deal of arbitrary power to the authorities who act upon the denunciations. It is a society without trust, without dignity. Already we are asked to denounce those who cheat on Social Security, who don’t pay their road tax, whom we suspect of evading income tax. Needless to say, such denunciations will almost always be motivated by personal rancour rather than by moral considerations; behind the demand is the assumption that the authorities are more to be trusted than the people about us, and should therefore be the primary focus of such loyalty as we can muster.
“It is alarming that an educated member of our intelligentsia should think it perfectly right to practice such methods on someone who was not forcing her attentions on anybody, in order to denounce her and do her harm. But with everyone in possession of a recording device such as an i-Phone, and in a society in which ideological monomanias are common and indeed encouraged or mandated by official policy, we may confidently expect more of this behaviour.”
It sounds like he is unaware of how the ISO has progressed down this route. The ISO has for many years required the recording of almost every detail short of electronic audiovisual evidence.
UKAS exploits victims’ failure to distinguish between
ISO compliance audits that measure records of actions against SOPs, are about the “management system”, and are for inspectors
medical audits that have been performed for many years and enquire about a broader range of practice than SOP compliance, aim to improve treatments, and are for the benefit doctors and patients.
A revised ISO standard attempted to address the low value of its audits by tacking on a demand for corrective, preventive and improvement actions to be recorded. Failure to complete these boxes is judged to be a poor audit. This requires the recording of petty issues to fulfill the demands of the standard. The unsatisfactory auditor is in need of retraining.
Since inspectors only visit annually, victims are required to conduct several audits per month. In these they effectively denounce their comrades for non-compliances. But in a civilized fashion.
Internal auditors become the UKAS inspectors’ unpaid eyes.
The surveillance system reaches up as well as down. UKAS inspectors are inspected by their own managers and by peers from inspection bodies in other countries according to another ISO standard. This is a self-replicating Von Neumann machine of bureaucratic accountability.