Nanny is very concerned about the environment these days; she loves to lecture us about global warming, the benefits of recycling and the environmental impact of heavy industry.
That, I guess, is why she had a rain forest destroyed in the Amazon recently in order to provide the wood for a refit of the fixtures and fitting in Westminster.
Anyhoo, Nanny has turned her attention to the environmental impact of war. She has decided that weapons actually pose a serious health and safety risk, as such she wants to minimise that risk.
Somewhat of a contradiction you would have thought?
Apparently not, according to Nanny's friends in the MOD and BAE Systems (one of the world's largest arms manufacturers).
The latter are designing "green" munitions and lead free bullets.
The MOD (Ministry of Defence) has proposed quieter warheads, to reduce noise pollution, and grenades that produce less smoke.
Dr Debbie Allen, director of corporate social responsibility at BAE systems, said:
"Weapons are going to be used and when they are,
we try to make them as safe for the user as possible,
to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment."
Needless to say, this green policy has caused some people to take a sharp intake of breath. Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:
"This is laughable.
BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical,
but they make weapons to kill people and
it's utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly."
FYI Britain has dropped more than 900 bombs in Iraq, and the United States dropped 1,500 cluster bombs.
Nonetheless, BAE are championing bullets with lower lead content because:
"lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people."
Am I the only one who thinks that the above could be construed as being a contradiction in terms?
Funny old world isn't it?