The Nanny state has bred a generation of self centered, selfish, moronic scum.
I reproduce this article in full from Help for Heroes:
Swimmers throw abuse at injured servicemen in pool Nov 21 2007 INJURED soldiers were subjected to a humiliating encounter when they were jeered at a public swimming pool.
Servicemen from Headley Court rehabilitation centre near Leatherhead were about to begin their weekly swim at Leatherhead Leisure Centre, which helps with their therapy, when they were verbally abused by a group of regular swimmers.
One woman, believed to be in her 30s, was so incensed that the soldiers - many of them amputees having returned from conflicts in the Middle East and Asia - were using the pool that she told them that they did not deserve to be there.
It is alleged that she told the men that she pays to swim there and they do not. According to witnesses she was so abusive that the soldiers' instructor pulled the groups out of the water to avoid further embarrassment.
Charles Murrin, of Friars Orchard, Fetcham, who witnessed the incident, said: "I was so cross and I could not believe what she was saying.
"The lane was roped off which they do every week and people can swim in there up until 11am and then the soldiers go in.
"She said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays money to come in the pool and they don't." The partially sighted 79-year-old, who was in the Royal Navy man and served in the Korean war, added: "I just cannot believe it happened and that people are like this.I spoke to the instructor in the changing room afterwards and he was livid.
"I know what these people are going through because I talk to them and I have got quite friendly with them."
Linda Sinclair, of Thossnroft Drive, Leatherhead, also witnessed the incident. She said: "I was coming out of the pool as the people started to complain and I was thinking how dreadful it was.
"It was a few people that were complaining and it made me cross and it was not nice for those soldiers."
There were two groups of soldiers waiting to use the pool but following the tirade of abuse their instructor ordered them to leave.
A spokesman for Mole Valley District Council, which owns the facility in Guildford Road, said: "There appears to have been a rare incident where two members of the public queried the provision of lanes of the swimming pool for Headley Court.
"While we wouldn't condone what happened, staff at the leisure centre did their best to accommodate all concerned and acted professionally in dealing with the situation."
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We are disappointed that a small number of people objected to the closure of swimming lanes so that patients of Headley Court could use them."
The incident comes just weeks after a national appeal was launched to raise £5 million for Headley Court to build a new full-size rehabilitation pool with equipment in their gym.
The centre treats 180 injured servicemen who have to make the half-hour trip to Leatherhead to use the pool for vital cardiovascular exercise.
I would suggest that the complainants are immediately conscripted. Then let's see how they feel about soldiers "deserving to be there"
ReplyDeleteSo the Council did their best to accomodate all the groups concerned? I'm afraid my response to that (no doubt fat, waddling) chav sow would have been somewhat terse: "Out, and don't come back. And that goes for your mates!!" Only not so politely.
ReplyDeleteBut then again I'm extremely politically incorrect.
So they "hadn't paid"? What about their lost health and limbs? That disgusting fiasco in Iraq may be immoral and indeed illegal, but I have nothing but admiration for the troops being made to fight in it.
That swim was quite possibly the highlight of the week for those lads - something to look forward to. As for those sows, just goes to show how thick, ill-mannered and utterly degenerate our "Big Brother" square-eyed "culture" has become.
I wonder, had the Chief Sow and her mates paid......from money received from the taxpayer in the form of benefits? 30 eh? A prime example of Thatcherjugend.
Pete
This incident just shows how much this country has degenerated. The chief sow seems to feel that just because she has paid a few pennies to swim there, she and her crew should have exclusive rights to the facility. Never mind the fact that these brave injured service men and women gave their all for the likes of this plebe and it's ilk, to be able to swim in safety and freedom.
ReplyDeleteIf I were someone that had served in the forces, then I would seriously be asking myself for what end. It seems this type of plebe is becoming more and more common in our society. I really don't like what our country has become, all the good things the British were renowned for and stood for are being ridiculed and eroded by PC and greed.
Ahhhgh, I'll have to stop now I've fallen off my soapbox.....
llc@molevalley.gov.uk
ReplyDeletePerhaps you'd care to express your solidarity with our injured servicemen?
o|--) Dog.
Hang on people.
ReplyDeleteHow would you like it if you had paid for your annual bath expecting at least a little privacy and found your time mixed with more strangers than you expected?
I expect the person of the female persuasion (allegedly) was consoled when she returned to her place of residence and hugged a few trees or something. She may even have decided to move on somewhere else.
Why didn't the witnesses who said they were "cross" and the incident was "dreadful" remonstrate with the perpetrators? If there were only two complainants, they were obviously outnumbered and could surely have been roundly told off and shamed into leaving.
ReplyDeleteBut I suppose that, as per usual, the disapprovers turned their heads the other way and retreated hastily to their changing cabins, because they didn't want a "fuss".
That is how we allow bullies to take over the world.
There are occasions when a person "asks for it" as the saying goes, and a good, swift shot to the face (open-handed of course, as we're speaking of a lady) is the least that justice demands.
ReplyDeleteMost of you seem to be suggesting that this was a chav. But hang on a bit. She might be; however:
ReplyDeleteWere all the people that objected to that house being converted to accommodate visiting relatives of injured servicemen chavs too? I seem to recall that these were rather wealthy people. Not the sort that would normally be called chavs or plebes.
So what's special about this particular incident?
WSPete? Tonk?
I speak as a former enlisted man.
Sir HM makes a good point and I suspect the full story has not been reported.
ReplyDeleteWealth and even background do not necessarily mean that chav like attitudes and opinions will not surface from individuals and cherry picked quotes be published.
Somewhere I read that there were children present in the public session. Perhaps it might be better for both groups if the facility's management could find a way to separate the sessions.
Better still from the point of view of the soldiers would be having their own facilities at the rehab centre since that would additionally save them over an hour travelling and make the availability that much better. Indeed how a centre can be considered complete without such a facility I am not sure. Well, other than in the minds of treasury officials of course. Once upon a time I seem to recall that military hospitals were amongst the best equipped facilities since keeping expensively trained men and women available for duty made sense. Assisting the seriously injured was therefore the continuation of that purpose and usefulness using existing overheads. These days it seems even that logic is lost on the authorities.
Of course the timing of the story and the publicity it provides for the appeal fund is notable. I hope the appeal is successful. It would be nice to think that the funding could come mostly from taxes with the amount being saved by reducing or removing tax funding of other less worthy projects. There are a number that come to mind. Perhaps Tony Bliar's pension could be diverted to fund the running costs of the completed facility.
I have been a serviceman; I have even been shot at by my country’s enemies. I have also experienced at first hand the sort of antipathy – antagonism even - that the sight of a uniform can trigger among one’s own countrymen. Because I had no other choice, I accepted the muttered asides and the bleak looks that the appearance of me and my comrades on city streets usually occasioned. The idea, therefore, that the British military enjoys the support and respect of the majority of the British public was exposed to me as a sentimental myth at a very early stage in my military career. Kipling was, of course, absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteSo, ex-servicemen and even serving soldiers will probably find this story – despicable though the details make it appear - less distressing than it may appear to civilians. That people should find the presence of their protectors (even those injured or disabled in service to the country) objectionable or distasteful is not particularly surprising; what I find saddening is that those ‘nice’ people who looked on in disapproval eventually did nothing but walk away (no doubt muttering quietly under their breath in order to avoid a scene).
While I seldom disagree with Grant, in this instance I must: the idea that the public should be spared the pain of seeing war-caused disabilities by arranging separate sessions, simply panders to the perverse values of people like the sow whose protest was reported. My attitude? The boys themselves can probably bear the extra pain – the public should be made aware of what happens in war.
So far as the operators of the Public Baths are concerned, although, in any civilised society, they and their bosses would (and should) have been fired, this is modern Britain, I’m surprised they were even expected to make a statement.
I usually make a (modest) Christmas donation to charity. Half goes the the Salvation Army because I reckon that in contrast to the vast majority of charities in every sphere, they do not waste my small input on marketing and spin; and especially putting out distorted and opportunistic press releases usually giving the results of some very dubious "research"
ReplyDeleteOne of the Telegraph charities has usually benefited from the other half but this year it will go to the Help for Heroes organisation.
I reckon that is the best way I can metaphorically kick this evil B**ch in the teeth and suggest that you all do likewise
Sir HM:
ReplyDeleteOf course we do not know from the details presented whether these persons are Chavs/Plebes or otherwise.
I base my assumptions on the following:-
Richer and more educated people tend not to get involved in face to face slagging matches, they tend to write letters to those in power and instruct lawyers, as was the case in relation to the building of the relative's accommodation in the grounds of the facility.
Richer people tend not to use the local council's sports centre; they tend to belong to private clubs.
Chavs tend to play the baby card when they wish to bully to get their own way. In this case the chief sow allegedly played the baby business card by saying these people (The ex service personnel) would scare the kids. Typical bullying chav tactic.
I use the term plebe in it's original meaning in the English language: A lesser human being. I doubt if this could be argued with.
Of course these are only my views based on life experience and my own observations of life....I could be wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
Tonk
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that you are probably correct. Bit that's getting my goat is that one part of the population is addressed in these derogatory terms, while the richer part of the population, who behave in precisely analogous ways, isn't.
They are ALL lesser people. ALL scum, when they do this sort of stuff.
I look back to my younger days and I do sometimes wonder what could have persuaded me to place myself at risk of harm on behalf of these people (it was an uncle, actually, who himself served for 37 years as an enlisted man). It's not as if work was in short supply in the 60s and 70s.
Honestly, we agree on the basics here. Ideally, I'd like to see a 'Sun' full-scale monstering of the bitch - to be followed by a full-scale monstering of those earlier, wealthier people. Full life histories, sex lives, the works.
Grumpy probably has it about right over the distress caused, and for about the right reasons. I was once refused petrol at a filling station while in uniform. I asked why - 'don't serve servicemen here, you're just troublemakers'. Once in a town I'd never been to before, got refused service in three bars. Same reason.
Go figure.
Though for some reason I have a gut feeling that the women invilved here are of the teacher/social worker type of middle class (not necessarily actually teacher or social worker - but that type ... perhaps a Green or 'peace'-type activist or council staff or something. Something like that anyway).
ReplyDeleteJust a gut feeling.
And there MUST be cctv footage available from various parts of the leisure centre. Hope some journo starts pointing his cheque book at the appropriate staff
Sir HM,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the name calling of people down the lower end of the social economic scale and the way those further up appear to escape. The reason is, in my view, that those higher up tend to be sneakier, as previously suggested by the use of more discrete complaining techniques.
I would still address a wealthy person that complained about this type of thing as a sow or a plebe, as clearly in my view they would be. I could also think of a few other choice names that I may use.
I understand completely what you are getting at and agree with you.
I was appalled by the behaviour of the wealthy people that complained that objected to the guest provision for visitors at the facility in question. These were clearly selfish, self centred nimbys that cared more about their property value than our ex servicemen. They are worse in some respects because, given their education and privileged position they should have known better. I have nothing but contempt for them. I also am disappointed that others that were around at the time did not get involved in showing the chief sow that she was wrong, however I am not surprised that all stayed silent as we tend not to get involved in public disputes for fear of being prosecuted ourselves. We are indeed going through sad times in this country when we all stay silent despite knowing that, what we are seeing is wrong.
Blame Thatcher of course.
ReplyDeleteShe's also responsible for AIDS and Global Warming, WW2 and the death of Kennedy.
Meanwhile, lavish misguided sympathy and praise on military men.
They only wanted to volunteer to kill people with less questions asked than a Mafioso Hit Man.
But seriously, they have been injured, and some of them might have had the motive of defensiveness towards the people of the country, so we have to respect that they are entitled to a little outing in the pool.
As for the woman who complained, she's probably one of those flakes who loves to talk up the state of the country at parties, but when she sees the price of having the state of the country, she vomits up a load of unfiltered bile and blames people who can no longer defend themselves due to missing limbs etc.
It's a very British thing, as is doing and saying nothing about it.
This country is stuffed.
"but that type ... perhaps a Green or 'peace'-type activist"
ReplyDeleteSir HM, and Grant for that matter. I am one of those Greens, or to use Grant's pejorative term: "Tree Hugger". Take time to CAREFULLY read my previous contribution - it's the second post, easy enough to find. You might also be interested to know that it was I who aleted Ken to this affair. So let's have a little less "Greenbashing" shall we? Not all Greens are politically correct - most of the serious ones (not the middle-class "right-on" fluffies) are, like myself, deadly serious.
I'm afraid the behaviour of that sow and her chums was typical of the mentality of the far Right. That's why I described them using the extremely pejorative "Thatcherjugend" - an allegory of "Hitlerjugend"
Pete
WSPete
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt you, and I wasn't trying to gratuitously give offence. But you do know the stereotype (you even cited it - " middle class fluffies". Beautiful) I was trying to evoke. I'm very Green myself - I consume very little, have no car, the only electronics I possess are a laptop, printer, and an old radio. If everyone consumed the way I do the entire world economy would collapse.
Doesn't mean I don't want that woman comprehensively stuffed. And that still leaves my original bugbear - why is it only the lower classes that get the seriously pejorative names?
S'OK Sir HM......none taken. I'm just a grumpy old sod.
ReplyDelete"why is it only the lower classes that get the seriously pejorative names?"
They don't necessarily. Upper class chavs are "Hooray Henries"!
Mind you only the poor are mad, the rich are "eccentric".
Bear in mind that being a Green I don't have a "class mentality" as such, I leave that to Labour and Tory parties. I use the term "middle class" merely to identify a stereotype. And I detest scum no matter how big their houses and bank accounts. There's a bit too much bullying nowadays for my likeing, whether by callous bureaucrats or, as in this case, by some Shazza who sees the disabled to be fair game. Disabled, I may add, who are far braver than she and her disgusting ilk.
Such behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated when I were a tadpole back in the 1960s. It's this very kind of behaviour that has led to the politically correct "inclusiveness" that is smothering us all in cotton-wool nonsense rules and regulations.
Pete
Hey 'deadly serious greeny', you are probably closer to Hitler in your perjorative methods than Maggie ever even was accused of being.
ReplyDeleteStill, to people like you my freedom is your repression, right?
Because it stops you from telling me how to live my life?
Pietr:
ReplyDeleteI think green is the new PC.
They use similar tactics to silence the opposition.
The new religion of climate change has leapt from likely to beyond repute in a space of a couple of years.
This is despite much non British Government funded evidence being readily available for all to see.
They have invented terms such as climate change denier; just as the PC brigade use various isms to silence their opponents.
I recycle, not because I am green or buy into the whole climate change argument, but because it makes sense. It makes sense to re use resources and to cut down on ones use of fuels because it saves you money. It also saves money to insulate ones house and one would be daft not to, doesn’t mean I’m green, I’m just sensible and not throwing my money away.
What the PC brigade and the Green brigade don't understand is that eventually, when they overplay their hand and constantly ram it down people's throats, people tend to ignore them.
How many people now really worry about being called a racist or a sexist? The PC brigade has used the terms so often they have lost their effectiveness.
When Gordon Ramsay uses the F word, no one takes much notice of it as he uses it so often, however if the Queen used the F word and meant it, it would have a great deal of effect as she doesn't normally use the word.
I am getting very fed up with the whole of the green agenda and their attempts to control my life, perhaps Ken should start a new website: "Green Nanny Knows Best."
Please read repute as refute in my previous post.
ReplyDeleteIt's this trype wroter that made the mistake not me!!
I have to agree (to some extent) with Pietr; this is not a class issue nor a rich/poor issue; its a cultural issue and it is certainly not a new 'Thatcherite' one. Kipling wrote about it - at length - in the early part of the 20th century and, in respect of other cultures the self-same attitude has been noted at least since Ancient Greek times. Was Thatcher really so powerful that her influence stretched back 2000+ years?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has served in the Armed Forces of this country - and I do mean anyone - will have experienced, to a greater or lesser degree, the contempt with which the general British public (of whatever social status) treats its servicemen.
I would not wish to be gratuitously offensive (except to this government and its servants) but to try to import one's own political prejudices into a discussion about the moral vacuity of some members of the public; particularly when that person's background is unknown; is, itself, offensive. The topic deserves better.
And tonk is absolutely spot on as well!!
ReplyDelete"Hey 'deadly serious greeny', you are probably closer to Hitler in your perjorative methods than Maggie ever even was accused of being"
ReplyDeletePietr, I personally don't give a s**t how you live your life - judging by how you sink to personal abuse you don't have much of a one anyway. Go ahead - dig your own hole. I'm just going to make damn sure I don't fall into it. And please don't waste your time flaming me. I learned long ago that it's just not worthwhile arguing with your type. I can spend my time far more profitably watching paint dry.
Perhaps I could remind you this blog is about small-minded people abusing vulnerable injured people. Judging by the sneering tone of your post you strike me as being of that ilk. You make me ashamed of having the same given name as you - assuming that IS your name?
By all means start an anti-Green rant. Just don't lower the tone of a serious thread.
To the rest of you - can't you see how the suits have hijacked the Green agenda in order to screw us? Now, can we kindly return to the matter in hand? Pretty please???
Pete
"but to try to import one's own political prejudices into a discussion about the moral vacuity of some members of the public; particularly when that person's background is unknown; is, itself, offensive. The topic deserves better."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be perfectly OK to import anti-Left political prejudices into these discussions, but not those that criticise the Right. I'm at least even-handed: I loathe both and not afraid to say so.
And Tonk, please don't be so silly linking greens and PC. I'm one of the most politically incorrect you could come across. Just remember, Green politics has its extremists, just as the Right has its Nazis, and the Left its communists. If you don't like to be stereotyped, don't do it yourself. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Pete
Oh, and while I'm at it, during my long life I've seen many party leaders and Prime Ministers come and go. My favourites: Harold Macmillan(Tory), Harold Wilson (Labour), Edward Heath (Tory). Old Ted gets a gold star for getting his own back on Thatcher after she stabbed him in the back. And Pietr, I have the same low opinion of Bliar and Brown as I do of Thatcher. Nothing to choose between them.
ReplyDeletePete
WS Pete:
ReplyDeleteSir,
Pardon me for being "silly" the point I was making was simply this:
There are some similarities between the greens and the PC brigades. Both groups are bigoted in as much as they do not tolerate opinions different to their own.
There are moderates in both groups and extremists in both too.
No one, least of all myself were suggesting you were PC or not, this is a discussion forum where people can express their views freely and hopefully without fear of being called silly because some person disagrees with that view.
In this country, we seem to give a lot of power to minorities that can shout loud, often to the detriment of the quieter majority. Both the PC brigade and the Greens are in my "silly" opinion , examples of this.
I would agree with your choice of PMs that you respected with the exception of the late Edward Heath because he took us into Europe although the Europe we have now is a far cry from the one we signed up to in 1972. However the seeds were sown.
One of the few MPs I currently respect is Boris Johnson as he is not tied by political correctness.
My dear fellow, when you attack mine and millions of other people's values(perjoratively), that is personal abuse, and you are (as is so often the case) standing the truth on its head.
ReplyDeleteWS Pete:
ReplyDeleteI think I may have left out some broader examples of people 'types' in my first post on this subject. An effort (failed it seems) by me to be briefer than is my habit.
My 'hugged a few trees or something." comment was intended to be generic and nuance a personality that would be more comfortable with non-human companions. Whilst the green leaning members of society also have a tendency to be anti-military it is of course by no means the only loose grouping with that opinion.
I don't think "hugged a few trees or something." has the same (if any) pejorative value as "Tree Hugger" and surely is (or should be to those of such leanings) less offensive then, say, "sow".
grumpy,
I don't think the public should necessarily be 'spared' the sight of disabled people, no matter how the disability arose. However I also don't think such things should be enforced without choice.
That applies to both groups. Were I a recently severely injured person I might well do all I could to improve my situation as much as possible - even endure journeys to and from a distant facility for swimming. And put up with a lack of privacy and the natural reaction (we all do it don't we, perhaps for fear of being accused of ignoring disabled people) of others seemingly or actually staring at me.
Why should the injured not have private facilities they can use whilst they come to terms with their new situation? (Assuming they do come to terms with it ...) I don't think I would want to be forced into a public place in those circumstances. A private facility, such as used to exist in military hospitals when we had them, would probably cost less than searching for two lost CDs.
I note that all viewpoints present here are now stereotyping groups, by presumed levels of affluence, across the spectrum of society. In all cases, it seems to me, the examples are of minorities in the perceived groups being used to classify the entire group. This is typical Nanny behaviour of course.
Many years ago I lived near and worked in Guildford. An affluent area with a large council estate and an influx of 'squaddies' from what was then a huge military area around Aldershot come Friday and Saturday nights.
It was then, and still is I believe, a place where the soldiers would let off steam, drink themselves silly and exit curry establishments without paying. Or, at least, some of them did some of the time. There was also the problem of competition for the attentions of young ladies between the locals and the influx from the barracks. (Not so many female soldiers back then. And in any case they were all, er ... stereotypical female soldiers. So rumour had it.)
On balance such activity did not and does not get good press and tends to be associated with the broader uniformed group. Garrison towns have always, so far as I know, had this sort of reputation. Wearing an official government supplied uniform is clearly likely to add to the public offense - it might make the behaviour appear officially sanctioned.
Of course there are other less obviously uniformed groups that also cause offence. Often there are calls for them to forced into the Army to improve their behaviour ...
The thing is that attitudes harnessed in certain ways, whether excessive youthful beligerence or highly focused personal belief (some may say self centeredness) and 'business acumen' (you will interpret that as you will) are all part of society as we live in it. Sometimes we see an attribute as bad, sometimes actions resulting from the same attitudes are considered praiseworthy.
Always we base our opinions about 'groups' or an individual within his or her perceived groups (we each belong to many) based on the most evident or most reported (in our experience or reading respectively) 10 percent or less of its membership.
This may not lead to the best understanding and most effective solutions to a perceived problem.
BTW I don't think this applies to the Nanny group where it is more likely that we only see the BEST 10% of Nanny activity which makes it even more worrying to consider what else might be going on!
Grant
Tonk said: "....as we're speaking of a lady...."
ReplyDeleteShe was NO lady!!