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.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

The Moral Dilemma

The Moral Dilemma
Nanny is only able to survive because people are either passive or pro active in their support of her policies.

The pro active people shrilly spread and enforce Nanny's edicts re smoking, breast feeding, fat consumption, drinking, obesity etc etc.

The passive people meekly shrug their shoulders, and claim that there is nothing that they can do to stop the ongoing encroachment into our liberties and daily lives.

Nanny gets away with it, because we let her. Her rules would be unenforceable, were we to all stand up and say "NO".

I was therefore highly amused yesterday when I saw both the "passives" and "pro actives" united in a moral dilemma, which resulted in two of Nanny's edicts being royally broken in full public view.

In an enclosed shopping centre in my "beloved" Croydon, a man was drinking from a can of lager and having a fag.

For shame!

Two of Nanny's prime edicts broken, and in public too!

Both the pro active (anti smoking, anti drinking Nanny shrillers) and passive shoulder "what can I do about it?" shruggers, walked past tut tutting and sucking their cheeks in as if sucking on a particularly bitter lemon.

Yet they did nothing?

They allowed Nanny's rules to be broken.

Why was this then?

Why didn't anyone tell this bloke that he as breaking Nanny's prime edicts, drinking in a no drink area and smoking in a public enclosed place?

Why didn't they stop him?

I shall tell you...

He was in a wheelchair, and as such Nanny's minions were faced with a moral dilemma that they couldn't handle.

My complements to the gentlemen for exposing the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of Nanny's rules. The rules are unenforceable, if the passive "shruggers" stop allowing themselves to be pushed around by Nanny and the "shrillers". In this case, the "shrillers" were neutered by their moral dilemma.

Whilst we are on the subject of moral dilemmas, here is some advice to the rag bag collection of eco campaigners who are camped out at Heathrow airport.

Were it not for the monumentally crass handling of this by BAA and the police, we would never have heard of this nonsense. Now it has become a major issue; as Nanny, BAA and the police have tried to convince us that these people are terrorists and a threat to society.

Anyhoo, my advice the the eco warriors is this...the greatest source of dangerous emissions that is damaging the atmosphere in the UK and other Western countries comes not from the car or from planes, but from the methane produced by our dairy and beef industries.

Were the eco campaigners really serious about reducing emissions, they would be advocating the extermination of all cattle. The trouble is that would pose a bit of a moral dilemma to these people, and of course airlines are a far easier target!

While I am on the subject, whilst Nanny and the media work themselves up into great apoplexy about the dangers to our sprogs from lead in the paint on imported Chinese toys...what about the dangers to the workers making these things for a pittance?

Rules and causes are great...if you don't have to think the consequences of them through first!

8 comments:

  1. john rimmer11:08 AM

    I wouldn't be too sanguin about the unliklihood of demonstrations against cattle. Afte smoking, booze and cars, Nanny's next target is going to be meat.

    Up to no it's been difficult to run a campaihn based on 'passive meat-eating', but now they've got the opportunity. Cow farts cause global warming and we're all going to die. The only solution is for us all to become veggies and turn grazing land over to growing soya.

    I reckon it'll be five years at the most before the campaign gets serious, probably starting with 'direct action' at abbatoirs, moving on to farms with the sort of action that proved successful with the anti 'live-exports' campaign of a few years ago.

    And after meat, what? My guess is keeping pets.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They had better not touch my pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting observations as ever Ken.

    It seems the able bodied will indeed be inclined to allow people in wheelchairs to flout certain rules without comment. They get their own back by using the reserved parking spaces at retail outlets.

    Not sure about the methane comments though. The signs are that the methane levels are stable, possibly in decline. That animals are being targeted as planet killers is more than a bit rich of course. I suspect that an increased intake of legumes and the energy required to farm enough to effectively replace the food loss from meat would be counter productive in the methane/CO2 stakes anyway. And that assuming that such things are as significant and the computer modelers and tax creators would like us to believe.

    And as for the toy makers - the eco left should have no problem with the 'killing the workers' part of it since it is just one method of population control to them. They may be upset about the potential 'pollution' but since the lead must come from somewhere on the planet's surface one could argue that it is simply being re-distributed.

    I rather suspect that John Rimmer is right about the anti-meat campaign gathering volume and garnering column inches.

    It probably won't matter much in the general scheme of things. I suspect the 'industrialised' world will implode in the next two decades, led by America.

    The parts of the world with plenty of resources, no moral compunction to worry about (at lease in terms that we would understand) and plenty of expendable labour available for both creation and destruction will gain control.

    By which point Nanny's regulations will be more than a little meaningless.

    It may be too late to stop the slide, though that should not be an excuse for not trying to influence events.

    ReplyDelete
  4. grumpy11:08 PM

    In a similar vein,
    I was delighted to read, only the other day, that the plantation of crops to sustain the growth in 'eco-fuel' consumption is leading to massive deforestation.

    As we all know, it is the destruction of forests which - according to the beads and muesli brigade - is going to destroy our planet.

    Isn't that great; we're all going to die because all those wonderful 'green' people want us to stop using oil, because burning oil creates nasty gases, which will destroy our planet, which means we're all going to die from the effects of CO, or CO2, if deforestation doesn't get us there first...

    What IS an eco-warrior to do?

    ReplyDelete
  5. grumpy10:26 AM

    Just had another thought:
    what if the bloke in the wheelchair had been black, wearing Muslim-looking clothes and had had a blind dog with him.
    Absolutely untouchable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:42 AM

    Grumpy:'What IS an eco-warrior to do?'

    Play Seppuku instead of Sudoku?

    ;o) skydog

    ReplyDelete
  7. grumpy1:16 PM

    skydog said,
    "play Seppuku instead of Sudoku", while the idea is brilliant,
    the problem is that Seppuku demands the use of sharp knives; Health and Safety would never allow it

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is like a game of trumps where each one of nanny's pets have a place within the pecking order. I would imagine the highest trump would be a one legged, single parent, black, lesbian, muslim pensioner from up t'north.
    I would imagine if we all went veggie the methane levels would rocket! I have never heard of ozone friendly baked beans for example.
    If global warming is caused by mankind, why are the icecaps on Mars melting at about the same rate as those on Earth?

    ReplyDelete