My thanks to John, who sent me this story about the goings on in the parish of Threemilestone in Truro Cornwall.Threemilestone Parish Council have provided a play area, equipped with play equipment, in the locality for very young children.
However, it was recently vandalised by youths putting broken glass bottles in strategic places; such as at the bottom of a slide and amongst the bark chippings, which had been provided to stop children from injuring themselves.
Scum!
A few weeks ago three of the Parish Councillors were trying to clear this glass from amongst the bark chippings, when a small group of local louts (Scum!) approached them and started shouting obscenities.
One of the Councillors started to take photographs of the youths (Scum!), using his camera in his mobile phone to record the incident.
Full marks to him for his initiative!
Unfortunately, Nanny then decided to involve herself in this matter.
A few days later, these same Councillors received a letter from one of Nanny's chums in the Social Services telling them that they were wrong to take the photos.
Why?
Because the Scum were classified by Nanny as being children!!
As John says, it speaks volumes does it not??
Nanny has made the mistake of classifying the vandals as human, their actions clearly define them as sub human scum.
As such, they do not deserve to be accorded the same rights accorded to decent human beings.
I wonder what precisely Nanny would have done if a child had injured himself/herself on this glass?
"I wonder what precisely Nanny would have done if a child had injured himself/herself on this glass?" Probably paid the family compensation and removed the play equipment. Then sent the 'scum' on an activity holiday as punishment.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder what the world will be like in 40 years when such 'scum' are running the country and my generation are thinking about retireing.
Bring back the good old days where a bobby would grab such louts by the ear and take them back to their parents for a good old fashioned thrashing (as older folks tell me used to happen).
How on earth did Social Services get to hear of it anyway?
ReplyDeleteI suppose one of the precious little darlings ran bleating to some jobsworth social worker
A bit of naming and shaming, after being made to clear up the mess is what these types need...
"I wonder what precisely Nanny would have done if a child had injured himself/herself on this glass?"
ReplyDeleteProbably arrest the child's parent(s) for neglect and endangerment and placed the child in government custody.
Since Nanny seems to re-define the age group which is 'child' to suite her needs this could be interesting.
ReplyDeleteIf we are not allowed to take pictures of children I suppose there is no purpose in trying to stop children wearing hoods since the hoods clearly help to maintain anonymity and are therefore a social benefit.
Likewise it would seem that all CCTV cameras and rcording equipment should be turned off when a 'child' comes into view.
It would be nice to think that such commonsense measures might extend to the alleged safety cameras which intrude more and more into our days.
An obvious extension would be to ban all mobile phones with any form of picture recording capability.
I think this idea could easily be extended to prevent any visually supported TV interviews. It is beginning to grow on me!
I think you will find that the decline started under the ultimate Nanny Knows Best, Ma Thatcher and her performing seals.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the rot set in as a direct result of the policies of Thief Joseph and "The Dalek" aka Douglas Hurd.
They did MUCH more damage than Roy Jenkins ever did or ever could have. And yes, I lived through those years so write from oberserving what happened at the time.