Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Nanny Bans Christmas Decorations

Nanny's Specially Approved Decorations'Tis the season to be jolly, tra lah lah lah lah tra lah lah lah...etc.

In keeping with the season Nanny has decided to play Scrooge this year, and recently banned Christmas decorations in a South London Job Centre.

In Nanny's view Christmas decorations are offensive to the unemployed!

Where on earth does Nanny get these strange ideas from?

Chris Nicol, the area manager of South London, is of the belief that benefit claimants who can't afford tinsel may be upset by the sight of decorations; therefore he has banned them.

A somewhat prissy overreaction wouldn't you say?

Given that the British winter is miserable enough already, and Job Centres aren't exactly brimming with comfort and joy even in mid summer, a few cheerful decorations might at least provide a nano second or two of cheer to those people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Evidently the staff of the South London Job Centre are none too happy either.

One worker said:

"All the shops and offices around us are happily putting up their Christmas decorations but ours are in the cupboard.

Most people have complained about the lack of decorations.

The twinkling lights and tinsel always seemed to lift people's spirits.

Now we are all glumly sitting in the dark in case someone takes offence
."

Mr Nicol doggegdly stuck to his role as Scrooge, saying:

"It's about considering the feelings of people

who might not to be able to afford Christmas.

Because of their circumstances they might not have decorations at home.

I don't think they should have their noses rubbed in it

by walking into a Job Centre.

I haven't heard that staff are unhappy

but it is impossible to please everyone
."

Unless the those on benefit shut their eyes whenever they go to the Job Centre, it is highly likely that they will see Christmas decorations elsewhere; in shops, houses, offices etc.

Does Mr Nicol keep his eyes shut when he goes to work?

Does Mr Nicol in fact never leave the Job Centre?

Does it not occur to Mr Nicol that by not decorating the Job Centre, he makes claimants feel more miserable than they already are for walking in there?

Nanny does seem a tad anally retentive doesn't she?

Is it one "l" or two "l's" in "anally" (my spell check doesn't seem to cover that word)?

Maybe a good strong enema will sort Nanny out in time for Christmas.

4 comments:

  1. Ben Dover and take it Britain11:11 PM

    the unemployed dont deserve christmas? perhaps this is the way that tony will get the long termers back into work.
    whats next?
    "get a job or the easter bunny gets it"

    ReplyDelete
  2. American Reader3:30 AM

    A few days ago, under the creative name of "Anonymous," I complained that restricting candles at Chelmsford Cathedral was not really that outrageous. The post about it therefore disappointed me. You promised you would "outrage [me] in the coming days."

    You have delivered. And I thank you. This ban on decorations is truly outrageous, nannyism at its worst.

    But what I don't understand is why Mr. Nicol does not pursue his odd logic further. Just as the visitors to his job centers might be depressed by the sight of Christmas decorations -- because they cannot afford them -- might they not also be upset by other things they can't afford, such as the cleanliness of the job centers or the nice clothes worn by the employees? After all, some of the patrons of these centers could live in squalor.

    So, why doesn't Mr. Nicol lead the way by working in squalor and wearing second-hand clothes? He can, for example, arrange for homeless people to live in his office -- give it the stench of urine and all that. In this way, most of the visitors to the centers, or at least the visitors to his office, will actually feel superior. The few who have it really bad off will feel right at home.

    Yes, the stench of urine in Mr. Nicol's office would truly be a little Christmas present for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Two possibilities.

    One is that Mr. Nichols truly has not even the most primitive insight into human nature. The man would actually have to be of another species (which I grant you, is a possibility) to believe the following:

    "It's about considering the feelings of people who might not to be able to afford Christmas. Because of their circumstances they might not have decorations at home. I don't think they should have their noses rubbed in it by walking into a Job Centre."

    No certified human being could believe this.

    Having been un or marginally employed for much of my adult life, I can honestly say that while I found several aspects of this condition depressing, I do not remember Christmas decorations even once diminishing my sense of cheer. Quite the contrary.

    The second possibility:

    He's lying, and this is about not stirring up conflict with members of other faiths.

    Which seems more likely?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Black Sea's second proposition may be close to the reality. One is not told about the Belief systems oMr. Nicol's own staff for example.

    Lets look on the bright side here.

    The tax payer has not had to fund the cost of the staff putting up some sort of tacky decorations (worse if new ones bought each year!) to celebrate a pagan party hijacked in the naem of Christianity.

    Secondly, we won;t be paying these people to take the damn decorations down again.

    The only down side to that is that if they are not dealing with decorations they may well fionding ways to hand out more money to more people who have just fallen off the back of a lorry.

    On that point I not the case reported in the press of the deported failed asylum seeking family that a judge has ordered to be found, brought back to the UK, given some money and then deported again. Based on a technical error in the way their case was handled.

    Astonishing.

    If one is a traceable subject with a permanent addressand a driving licence (for example) and you seek a defence to a dodgy speeding prosectuion based on a technical error you are likely to lose and be further penalised. Where as if you a failed asylum seeker you have free trips and cash thrown at you.

    Are they mad?

    Think of the carbon footprint for the journies!

    ReplyDelete