Tis the start of the week, and indeed the start of the year (one week in), time for a Prats of The Week Award.As if by magic, Nanny's chums in the Fareham Shopping Centre proudly present themselves for the award.
It seems that the jobsworths who are in charge of security of the centre are so worried about the threat of terrorism that they have banned photographs being taken, even when the photographs are being taken by grandparents of their grandchildren.
Kim and Trevor Sparshott were ordered to stop taking photos of their grandchildren, because they were causing a security threat. Then, for good measure, they were banned from the shopping centre for life!
They were thrown out of the centre, after they tried to photograph the look of surprise on their grandchildrens' faces when they turned up unexpectedly.
The Sparshotts were taking a break from their home in Spain, and wanted to surprise their family by arriving at the centre, in Fareham, Hants, while they were shopping.
Mrs Sparshottis quoted:
"I couldn't believe it. I was so shocked.
He said we had committed an act of terrorism."
Errmmmm...wouldn't an act of terrorism actually be a bombing or attempted bombing of said centre?
I suppose they should feel lucky that the guard didn't also try to accuse them of being paedophiles, which is the normal response from Nanny when a parent/grandparent/adult tries to photograph a child these days.
Jobsworth actions like this merely aid the terrorists.
Fareham Shopping Centre, well deserving Prats of The Week.
Feel free to drop them a note here manager@farehamshopping.com
Makes you proud to be British.
ReplyDeleteYes I guess the terrorism excuse was just the "cover all" excuse just like 'elf'n'safety for everything else. I suspect you hit the nail on the head when you spoke about paedophiles, because according to Nanny they are everywhere, even our local school has almost as many gates and fences and security patrols as Broadmore. Funny thing is, that the figures show that the risk and number of offenders is about the same as it was in the 1950s and 1960s when I used to wander miles on my own as a young child and do other things that Nanny is so against.
Remember folks, a frightened, uneducated population is easier to control than a confident educated one.
Want to take a bet that if the people taking the photos were swathed in black tents with only their eyes showing Nanny's little jobsworths would have said nowt.
ReplyDeleteSuch is Nanny's devotion to 'diversity' and 'social inclusion'that members of a certain religion are judged to be beyond reproach, whilst family groups (and I hasten to say of any skin colour) taking photos of each other are of course potential mass mudering terrorists, child abusers and probably racist and 'islamaphobic' as well.
>Errmmmm...wouldn't an act of terrorism actually be a bombing or attempted bombing of said centre?
ReplyDeleteHaving been in that shopping centre, I feel qualified to say that a bombing would be urban improvement rather than terrorism.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"
Having been in that shopping centre, I feel qualified to say that a bombing would be urban improvement rather than terrorism."
I don;t think I have ever been there but there are a few others I can remember that are probably similar enough for me to fully agree with Anon's comment.
The Sparshotts should think themselves luck to be given the perfect excuse never to visit the place again. Whether the tenants believe that banning potential customers on such a pretext is good for business is another matter.
The centre management and their security people fully deserve your award Ken.
Taking a photograph would not pose a threat or be considered as an act of terrorism. Let me just mention something here. Terrorists and Terrorism does not exist. These are both words to catagories and sum up individuals or groups whom act in a way that is not considered socially or governing acceptance by a government. Each governments view on 'Terrorism' differs.
ReplyDeleteStrangely enough i will be attending the Shopping Centre on Thursday. I can safely say that a previous remark stating the building would look better after a remodelling is not a positive attitude. What you need to assess here is the information or lack of, that this individual employed as a security guard had. Security Guards stand still (Static). Security Officers are trained to be Public Service. If the centre management and a security guard acted in a way that was offencive or defrimating of character, you have every right to take legal action.