Nanny has a very rigid view of the world, namely that everything that is stated by "non Nanny bodies" must conform to her rigid belief in pc.
The rules of pc are designed to ensure that no one on the planet can at any time be offended, or discriminated against, by the actions or words of another.
Now anyone with the slightest understanding/knowledge of human beings knows that this is of course an impossibility. Humans are a mass of prejudices; racial, sexual, social, political and religious. You name it, and people will either be for or against it.
We are genetically coded to mistrust those that are different, it is a self protection mechanism built into our genes thousands of years ago.
Nonetheless that does not preclude Nanny from legislating against every possible contrivance of prejudice.
An insurance firm, Lifestyle Services Group, has recently fallen foul of Nanny's pc view.
It has been ordered to withdraw a leaflet featuring four black men in a police identity parade, after Plymouth and District Racial Equality Council complained that it implied that black men are criminals.
The advertisement was promoting the firm's identity theft insurance, which aims to protect victims of stolen or forged identity documents such as a passport or driving licence.
The leaflet showed four black men in a parade, with one of the men shorter than the others and a frightened look on his face.
The text read:
"Sometimes you might wish someone had stolen your identity."
Lifestyle Services Group said it had not meant to offend anyone.
The Advertising Standards Authority concluded that by featuring black models, the mailing was seen to reinforce a stereotype that black men are criminals and therefore likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Therefore, are we to assume that black men do not commit criminal acts?
Do we assume that if the advert featured white models, then it would have been approved? Would that then not have offended white people?
Have the ASA not seen the other "offence" in this advert, namely the implication that people of a "short stature" are not able to look after themselves?
It was not Nanny's place to interfere, the market would have decided the issue.
Had the leaflet been deemed to be offensive, then people would have stopped buying the products and Lifestyle Group would have withdrawn the leaflet of their own accord.
Had the market decided that the leaflet was not offensive, then it would not have been withdrawn.
Nanny should have kept her hooter out of this.
As Basil Fawlty once said:
"..people like you, with nothing better to do than putting your noses into other people's business and causing trouble.
Well let me tell you, that's exactly the way that Nazi Germany started!"