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.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Nanny Bans, Then Unbans Pigs

Nanny Bans, Then Unbans PigsNanny is a tortured soul, she frets 24 hours a day about the offence that may be given to every single person living in Britain by even the most harmless of remark or action.

In Nanny's world it is always better, and easier, to ban something; lest it cause offence, rather than to allow freedom of speech and freedom of action.

Why?

In my view there are two main reasons for this approach:

1 Nanny fears freedom of thought and action, as of course they undermine her rule

2 Nanny is intellectually lazy and doesn't have the time or ability to justify "controversial" actions, therefore she takes the easy option and bans things.

Here is a particularly fine example of Nanny stupidity, concerning a simple school festival that turned into a battle between common sense and utter stupidity.

Honley Junior School in West Yorkshire was to perform the Roald Dahl story of Little Red Riding Hood and the three little pigs. However, Nanny didn't approve of this and instructed the school to substitute puppies for pigs.

Why?

Isn't it obvious?

Nanny decided that some of the Muslim children singing about pigs would be embarrassed.

Can anyone tell me, at what stage did Britain become an Islamic Kalifate?

Needless to say, there has been a right old hoo ha about this senseless decision, and Kirklees Council has stepped in and authorised the use of pigs in the show.

As ever with deranged decisions, the order to ban the pigs was made by a committee. You see folks in committees no one ever has to take responsibility for acts of utter stupidity, and as such the dimmest and most spiteful of people on the committee manage to get their views acted upon.

Gill Goodswen, who is one of the organisers of the Kirklees Primary Music festival behind the changes, said:

"We have to be sensitive if we want to be multi-cultural.

It was felt it would be more responsible

not to use the three little pigs
."

She said the committee had to consider the feelings of children who would be singing along, not just the performers.

"We feared that some Muslim children wouldn't sing along

to the words about pigs.

We didn't want to take that risk.

If changing a few words avoids offence

then we will do so
."

Feeble minded people like this, who don't stand up for common sense, allow bullies and extremists to pervert our way of life; she should be reomved from office...PERIOD!

Mohammed Imran, of the nearby Hanfia Mosque and Educational Institute, said that Islam does not ban the mentioning of pigs.

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said:

"My view is that the people responsible for this

are completely bonkers. It is the type of political correctness

which makes people's blood boil.

As usual it is done in the name of ethnic minorities

but it is perpetrated by white, middle class,

do-gooders with a guilt complex

and far too much time on their hands
."

Kirklees council education spokesman, Jim Dodds, stepped up to the mark (to his credit) and said the idea was bollocks:

"There is something barmy going on here

and it has happened on my watch.

I can tell you now that the three little pigs

will be back into the school musical festival.

The decision (to ban the pigs)

was made by well-meaning people -

it was the wrong decision,

so let's stick with the traditions
."

Good for him!

The festival is due to take place in June.

Re "well meaning people", these people should not be allowed out on their own, they cause more trouble and division in society than enough; because they spend their lives looking for fault in everything around them they are sad losers, willing to do Nanny's dirty work.

Convince a little man that he is performing a great task for humanity, and he will walk through fire for you.

15 comments:

  1. Big Al9:40 AM

    What grinds my gears is that these oh-so-well-meaning councillors never actually consult the poor people who might be "offended" - they just jump in with both feet and ban things.

    What next? I see the following bans coming:

    Rumplestiltskin: gives a negative image of persons of restricted growth.

    Rapunzel: Encourages hair-pulling, and therefore abuse against women.

    Goldilocks: encourages intolerance against legitimate squatters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken,

    I agree entirely with your observations regarding these sons of bitches more commonly described as "well meaning."

    I don't like, don't respect, and most importantly don't trust such titheads. What sort of bollocks criteria is "well meaning" when it comes to justifying or exonerating someone's actions?

    Need we recall those "well meaning" Medieval do-gooders burning "witches" at the stake and slaughtering Jews suspected of child sacrifice? Were they not intending the work of God? What's more "well meaning" than that?

    Incidentally, in a battle between common sense and utter stupidity, bet on utter stupidity every time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:59 AM

    Black sea; your closing remark is a universal truth. PT Barnum spotted it long ago: "You can never lose money underestimating the stupidity of the general public"

    Although perhaps "stupidity" should be replaced with "stupidity, apathy and inertia" nowadays

    ReplyDelete
  4. Davdi J Hilton12:54 PM

    At last! Someone has started a challenge on this PC-madness.

    ABOUT BLOODY TIME!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:30 PM

    Black Sea:
    If in doubt, bet on laziness and stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:59 PM

    "Mohammed Imran, of the nearby Hanfia Mosque and Educational Institute, said that Islam does not ban the mentioning of pigs."

    Wonder what the outcome would have been if the Imam was offended - same facts and all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:32 PM

    "Wonder what the outcome would have been if the Imam was offended - same facts and all."

    All the 'well-meaning' dick-heads would have been falling over each other in their bid to issue the most grovelling public apology and no doubt would offered the Imam a hefty sum in 'compensation'!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lord of Atlantis3:35 PM

    "...it is always better, and easier, to ban something; lest it cause offence, rather than to allow freedom of speech and freedom of action."

    Barmy decisions like this cause me great offence!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder how long it'll be before butchers, grocers and supermarkets will have to put bacon, hams, pork sausages and other pigmeat products under the counter, in case the sight of all that "unclean" flesh offends Islamic sensibilities.

    Now Jews are supposed to regard pigs as unclean, yet a friend of mine, an Israeli Jew, is quite happy to watch me munch away on bacon butties. In fact he'd buy me one!

    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  10. Big Al:'Rumplestiltskin: gives a negative image of persons of restricted growth.'

    So that's why I've been so challenged in the self-easteen dept. all my life! I was made to play Rumplestiltskin in my junior school play and I've had an inferiority complex about being only 5'8'' ever since. Can I claim compo? ;o)

    ''Convince a little man that he is performing a great task for humanity, and he will walk through fire for you.''

    Yeah, that would be my first option for the buggers too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Instead of banning school plays because it offends religious sensibilities, we should just ban religion in general, that would ease many of these loony pc problems for a start

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:06 PM

    This story baffles me but at the same time doesn't surprise me in the least. Most of all it really annoys me. How dare Nanny decide that something is offensive before the event. Did she intend this to attain nationwide coverage? How dare she decide that people would be offended before having the chance to be offended. It is taking away freedom of thought; Nanny will decide for you what is offensive.

    It is a cancer; Nanny is a cancer that is slowly decaying our free thinking, well prehaps not those who use this site, but those of the wider public.

    We are a minority who are holding our corner but seem to be losing. I hope we never lose and get stronger with every whim of Nanny.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But surely the deferential Gill Goodswen is not a Nanny but more a brainwashed victim of Nanny, re-educated to do Nanny's bidding without having to be told to.

    The sort of the things the Moonies and other cults have (rightly imo) been vilified for in recent decades. (Odd how the Scientologists seem to have found a way to acceptance though ...)

    I have met a number of people in my travels this week and not one of them had anything positive to say about our current Nannyism. TYhose who commented were universally negative, so far as I could ascertain from their words, about all of the so called burning issues of our time.

    There are just a few signs around that people have had enough of the BS. I, for one, hope that the signs are real and have substance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Even our razor-sharp Ken missed out the biggest irony of all in this.

    Puppies are baby dogs. MUSLIMS HATE DOGS AS WELL!!

    Anyway, I'm from Manchester and I get really really upset when I hear people say something is "manky". Where can I collect my compensation money?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous7:46 PM

    you said it all ken stupid fools scary blairy and is ban it britain brigade

    ReplyDelete