Congratulations to the miserable bastards who run the Victoria Shopping Centre in Ysgol San Sir Llandudno, for displaying some remarkably mean Nanny tendencies and banning some school children from singing Christmas carols because they were too loud.Whilst the media work themselves up into a frenzy about another country getting uppity over the name of a certain teddy bear, we should look to our own laurels wrt intolerance and bloody minded busybodiness.
Anyhoo, the school kids had been given permission to sing in the shopping centre and indeed were accompanied by their schoolteacher and parents.
That of course did not stop the miserable gits who run some of the shops there from complaining that the singing was too loud.
At this point the shopping centre security staff asked them to stop, after which the police then turned up as well!
How farking ridiculous is that?
The furore that this absurd incident caused has needless to say brought about abject signs of contrition from the centre manager, Sue Nash, who has now admitted/realised that the intervention of security staff was "a mistake" and said the pupils would be allowed to return this weekend.
Ian Jones, headmaster, said:
"They were a small group singing Christmas
carols to raise money,
and they were singing beautifully.
After a bit, a security guard came over
and said we had only meant to be singing
for one hour, and could we please stop.
I just said no, because I knew we were
allowed to sing between 11am and 3pm.
He said he had complaints from tenants
that we were too loud and asked us to stop.
I just asked how he proposed to stop children singing.
In the end, he said we would have to stop
or he would call the police.
A member of the public came over and
said she thought the singing was fantastic."
A Police Support Officer then attended the scene and asked the pupils to turn down the backing music on the CD player, and sing more quietly.
Mr Jones said:
"I couldn't believe what they were saying.
Some of the parents were incredulous."
Whilst, on the face of it, this may seem to be a storm in a teacup it does illustrate a number of issues wrt the Nanny state and the effect that it has on people:
- Intolerance of those who act outwith the norm, in this case kids singing where singing is not normally performed
- Intolerance of individuality and public performance (remember folks, Nanny wants public performers to have licences)
- Lack of common sense being applied by individuals and organisations (couldn't the shopkeepers have put up with it for an hour or so? Couldn't the security guard have kept his nose out of this? etc)
- The use of the state, and organs of the state, to settle personal disputes and pursue private vendettas (why on earth call the police?)
So, you can call the police over children singing carols in a shopping precinct where they have permission at a reasonable hour, but you cannot call the police over a neighbour playing load amplified music at 4 in the morning...
ReplyDeleteIt seems, we as a nation, are very quick to revert to law, be it to settle petty disputes by calling in Nanny's police or to sue for compensation for a broken toe nail.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if those that complained were non Christians but followers of another religion, were they stirring religious hatred?
This is what happens when Nanny introduces laws to make us tolerant, we become intolerant because we all think we are victims or special cases because the law tells us we are.
It would be interesting to see if instead of carol singers the people involved were, let's say, prostrating themselves on the floor, facing a certain compass point, and praising a certain faith in a loud fashion.
ReplyDeleteWould Nanny have arrived in force? Doubt it as Nanny is determined to force 'diversity' upon us while quite happily trampling over established customs and beliefs.
Don't forget, all religions and customs are equal to Nanny it is just that some are more equal than others.
The article quoted said :
ReplyDelete"and asked the pupils to turn down the backing music on the CD player,"
I assume they had checked that they could use this music - and that the CD player (ghetto blaster?) was indeed at a suitable volume.
Also it says a PCSO turned up.
So no mention of the law then.
As for the security staff - if he/she acted on his/her own initiative then clearly such initiative should be suppressed. But if he/she was asked to check something or carry out a specific action (how would he/she come to believe that the kids were only supposed to be singing for an hour for example unless that suggestion had been made to him/her in some form?) would he/she be allowed to do otherwise? See previous comment about use of initiative.
I'm surprised the head teacher, who sounds like he was clued up on what he could get away with, may have suggested that the kids would be singing for an hour between 11am and 3 pm. But he then decided to make them sing for 4 hours if he could get away with it and, presumably, raise more money.
I'm not sure it would be good for the kid's voices to sing for an hour, let alone 4. Perhaps he should be prosecuted for abuse?
I fully accept the point about Miserablism but if, like me, weeks of constant Xmas noises and carols drive you to distraction at the hypocrisy and excessive money grabbing event that Xmas has become you may think that the actions of the miserablists were, in this case, greatly to be applauded. Plus they saved the kids voices from possibly permanent damage. Maybe.
I trust that the kids had the requisite public liability insurance?
ReplyDelete