Nanny has something of an obsession with paedophiles at the moment, don't know why; maybe they just make an easy target, much like "witches" did in the 16th century.Paedo stories certainly give the tabloids something to scream about, when the stories of alleged terrorist plots are thin on the ground.
Anyhoo, Nanny's obsession hit home to Suzanne Hansford the other week. Mrs Hansford was banned from taking photos of a four year old child in a paddling pool on Southampton Common.
You might, at this point, say fair enough. However, I should point out that Mrs Hansford was the girl's grandmother on a day out with her grandchild Amber.
Amber was taking her first dip in a pool.
Mrs Hansford was just about to take the photo, when one of Nanny's park attendants told her that she couldn't because of council regulations.
Seemingly the "good old boys" of Southampton City Council have issued an edict that no photos can be taken at its pools and leisure facilities, due to the current hysteria that paedophiles might obtain illicit snaps of young children.
Mrs Hansford said:
"Are we now to be denied having photographic memories of our children and grandchildren?
I was so annoyed.
There are thousands of law-abiding people out there,
just trying to enjoy the summer and take happy family pictures.
Why should we be penalised for the degenerates in our society?"
Southampton City Council ignored her argument, and note that exceptions could only be made for groups, such as Brownies or Cubs.
Er what makes the Brownies and Cubs so special then?
Oh in case you think that the Brownies and Cubs are getting extra special treatment, I should point out that they have to make an application in writing to the council and get parental permission from each child to be photographed.
Ludicrous isn't it?
Paul Shearman, Southampton City Council's outdoor sports manager, rolled out the tired old mantra used by jobsworths around the country:
"Health and safety is paramount in making each customer experience a positive one when visiting our pool.
As a preventative safety and comfort measure we do run a policy of restricting the use of cameras, including camera phones.
We would ask for understanding of this policy but do appreciate and accept that this may disappoint a minority of customers."
Does he really believe that pile of shit?
I wonder, does the council actually have the right to do this?
Supposing that Mrs Hansford had actually taken the photo, could they have sued her?
On what grounds?
Would they have to allege, and prove, that she was a paedophile?
I suspect they would have done the usual cowardly Nanny trick and pressed a lesser charge, totally unconnected with the alleged offence that they are claiming to protect children from.
Nanny has a very sick mind, she needs to be relieved of her position.
That 'no photos at the pool' crap is happening here in NZ too.
ReplyDeleteUtter bollocks!
The word "customer" when used by these asses always makes me laugh. I remember a time when the Inland Revenue started using it -- taxpayers were described as "customers" -- and I got as far as composing a letter telling them I wished to withdraw my custom and have nothing more to do with them. But of course I didn't post it for fear of reprisal in the form of an "investigation".
ReplyDeleteTossers, the whole bloody lot of them.
It does occur to me that this little girl was probably topless going into the pool. It seems to be the case that people think it is OK for pre-pubescent (can I say that?) girls to be topless in public and very young children to be completely naked - so how can the public also claim a hatred for paedophiles when they seem to do so much to make any salacious activities rather easy? Also very offensive to muslims.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the council should shut the pools in deference to the feeling of the local muslim population or force the attendess to paddle fully clothed as used to be the case a few decades ago.
Or convert the pool area to something more morally acceptable. How about reserving it as an easily cleanable area for honour killings and public stonings? Or for people of a self-destructive disposition to blow themselves up in protest at - well, whatever they feel they need to protest about. They could keep the camera ban though - it might help to prevent martyrdom.
Would it not be possible to pass an act of parliament that would allow Southampton and Portsmouth to be eradicated?
Or maybe Nanny just want a monoploy on cameras viw her CCTV network.
"Health and safety is paramount in making each customer experience a positive one when visiting our pool."
ReplyDeleteIf we are all 'customers', which this jobsworth claims, then, as a public servant he should be familiar with the expression "The customer is always right".
As a general rule of life, any public official who uses the word 'paramount' is talking crap. It is generally used in the same sentence as 'healthnsafty', which makes it doubly crap.
ReplyDeletetalking of nanny and photographs, have you seen this one? (hat tip, Michelle Malkin)
ReplyDeleteJeez, stop moanin'. Won't be long now until all women are forced to wear the burqua, all little girls sold into sex slavery in Saudi and modern tech like 'cameras' and 'electricity' are banned under British Sharia-Talibanic Law.
ReplyDeleteAll doubt concerning what you can or cannot do will be removed, you simply have to visit your imam in your local mosque and ask him. He'll probably keep it simple and just say 'No', though you'll need to learn arabic to understand him.
Myrddin, you've got to love the logical disconnect that was reported. Muslims want 'equality' and their own laws...
ReplyDelete