Nanny strikes again, this time she has decided to ban the fine art of conger cuddling.
What the F is conger cuddling Ken?
Patience my dear friends, I will reveal all.
The fine town of Lyme Regis in Dorset has practiced this noble art for the last 32 years. It takes place annually on the harbour, and the money raised from the practice is used to fund the RNLI (lifeboats).
Now alas, thanks to some interfering busybody with nothing better to do with their lives, Nanny has stepped in and banned this fine old tradition.
But what is it Ken?
Patience please, I am coming to that bit.
Contestants pair off, and take it in turns to hit each other with a 5 foot dead conger eel suspended from a rope.
The event has raised thousands for the RNLI.
Nonetheless, one sad individual has decided that the game is "disrespectful to dead animals". Please note that the eel is well and truly dead before the game starts!
Death it seems, is not enough for Nanny, she has pulled the plug on the game and banned it.
Nice to know that one person with one agenda can affect the lives of many. Rather odd though that when many try to lobby the government, eg over sacking Prescott, they are ignored.
The complainant, seemingly with a grudge against the town, also threatened to film the event and create a nationwide campaign; ie bring in all the sad losers that hang around Britain with nothing better to do than look for trouble.
Richard Fox, founded the tradition in 1974, said he was 'livid' the event had come to an end.
"It is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
How can you be disrespecting an animal's rights when it is dead?"
Conger cuddling derives from an old West Country tradition of mangel dangling which is a similar game involving a mangelwurzle.
What is a mangelwurzle when it is at home?
The eels are not caught specifically for the event, but are caught accidentally by local fishermen.
Good grief, they will be banning bare knuckle boxing, cock fighting (can I say cock on a website?) and dog fighting next!
There is something rather sinister in all of this, which is indicative of the "style" of the Nanny state. Instead of Nanny basing her "judgements" as to what is acceptable or not acceptable by listening to the majority, she bases her judgements on the bully boy tactics of a small minority of "shit stirrers" and single issue losers. These people have no interest in the democratic purpose, but seek to achieve their goals via intimidation, mob rule and violence.
In other words, the majority is subjugated by the minority.
Nazi Germany was run in exactly the same way.
You have been warned!
You notice that nobody ever says "I enjoy doing random-activity but I think it is bad for me/upsets other people/just plain wrong so I want you to ban it/pass a law against it so that I can't do it any more!"
ReplyDelete"Busybodies" only ever want other people to be stopped, not themselves.
I want a ban against busybodies interfering in the lives of other people. I think it's bad for them and I don't like it.
Perhaps we should all go vegetarian as eating meat could be disrespecful to dead animals. Or would that be disrespectful to vegetables.
ReplyDeleteWitch burning is another fine old tradition which is no longer with us. Would I be considered unreasonable if I suggested it might be a good idea to reintroduce it especially for the busybody whose complaint has terminated Conger Cuddling, with subsequent loss in funds for the RNLI. I also recommend applying it to politicians and bureaucrats plus all the other petty tyrants and jobsworths infesting this country.
ReplyDeleteJake:
ReplyDeleteMight come up and see you lads in the week . Might bring you up a rabbit.
Withnail:
We don't want a rabbit, we want a pheasant.
Jake:
Now listen here you young prat. Haven't got no pheasants. Haven't got no birds. No more than you have.
Withnail:
Of course you have, you're the poacher.
Jake:
If I hear more words out of you I'll come up and set one of these black pods on you.
Withnail:
Don't threaten me with a dead fish.
Jake:
Half dead he might be, but I'll come up after you and wake you up with a live one.
I can't see the probelm with this.
ReplyDeleteIt is a disgrace that the RNLI have to survive on the generosity of the public at large and the availability of volunteers who are ready to risk their lives and their family's income to perform a service.
This country is raped by the Chancer's taxes yet still relies on volunteers at all levels and in all roles to provide basic services.
If nanny bans the means by which volunteer organisations and, in particular, genuine charities (if you can find one these days that does not have a political agenda) I trust she is prepared to pick up the tab on out behalf - no strings attached.
Two points. One, the jobsworths (whose wages we pay, whose pensions from the age of around 58 they are prepared to "fight" for at our expense, are NOT the problem. The real problem is our tolerance of them. Why in the name of God and the Bill of Rights do we, the British people, put up with this bullshit? Why do around 72% of us find it so difficult to vote in local elections?
ReplyDeleteSecond, I am the only person here to post a comment under his own real name. Think about it.
Grant - I'm very happy that the RNLI is not state funded, and regularly pay towards it myself.
ReplyDeleteIf it were state funded they would never launch - in the interests of the health and safety of their crews
Anom
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about the RNLI never being able to launch if the gov controlled it.
However, the fact that the RNLI is not supported by the state is a disgrace.
We are a maritime nation, and rely on the sea and those who traverse it for our food and our defence.
My father and grandfather were both in the navy/merchant navy.
Grandfather in WW1 was wounded in the navy, then joined the merchant navy and served in WW2.
Dad was in the merchant navy, in the Atlantic convoys in WW2 then peacetime service after.
Dad is still furious that the country does not fund the prime maritime rescue service.
It is the only charity he supports, but it sticks in his throat that it is funded like this.
Ken
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGrant - I'm very happy that the RNLI is not state funded, and regularly pay towards it myself.
If it were state funded they would never launch - in the interests of the health and safety of their crews "
I entirely sympathise with what you say BUT, as Ken says later, that this service seems to have so little if any Govt. support seems unduly unacceptable.
Would that the damnable lottery was used as a source of funding for the RNLI rather than some, most in fact, of the things it does support.
Ken, I think you and your Dad are close to having an appropriate view. The only thing one wouold quibble with, sadly, is
"We are a maritime nation, ..."
which I fear should be past tense as applied to the country.
However we should be grateful to all the nationals from around the world who sale the seas and brave the elements to supply us and providing a service such as the RNLI to help them in times of need is still important.
Beyond that the RNLI seems to be in place mainly for rescuing tourists who get into trouble on the beaches. If Nanny banned the use of beaches - there must be any number of reasons to do so whose justification argument would be far more convincing than almost all the other bans that have been implemented - the need for funding would, presumably, reduce and we would all be happier and safer.
There are also fairies living at the bottom of my garden who need protection and could use the cash 'saved' ...
Nope, I stick by my earlier opinion. The government does not give any funding to the RNLI (except through tax exemption) and I don't want them to.
ReplyDeleteIf they did then the RNLI would end up just like all the government "services" - inefficient, massively expensive and hamstrung by having more managers, HR people, H&S reps than front line staff.
The RNLI does in fact receive a bit of money from the national lottery. but not very much, and not for rescue activities. They applied for funding for this a few years back and were turned down - apparently it wasn't "inclusive" enough. Probably just as well it didn't get funded - by now you'd have to fill out an ethnic orgin questionaire so they could decide whether to rescue you or not.
ReplyDelete