Dear me it has been while since I have awarded my prestigious, and world famous, "Prats of The Week" award.This week, without any doubt whatsoever, the judges were unanimous in their decision to award it to Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex.
It seems that Nanny's unhealthy obsession with paedophilia has reached new heights of hysteria there, as the school have published photos of their pupils (perfectly innocent and non offensive) with the children's faces hidden by a smiley from the acid house days of the 80's.
For why?
Well, seemingly, the school believes that by showing the actual faces the kids will be exposed to all sorts of paedophile shit.
All very well, if Britain has become a nation of paedophiles and if the kids names and addresses etc were also published.
However, as far as I can tell none of that is the case.
However, in Nanny's world, fear is the key to keeping good order.
Headmistress Clare Reece said:
"The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about.
Not all parents want their children's picture on there.
You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures.
In order to protect our children, we have made the decision not to include any photos of our pupils on this website."
Surely the safety of the kids is the key issue, not the safety of the pictures??
Rather bizarrely, she went on to say that the photographs were printed unaltered in the school newsletter which was sent to parents.
How can the school guarantee that the recipients of the newsletter won't do anything weird with the pictures?
This whole idea is of course bollocks:
1 The children's personal safety is not impaired one way or another by having their face shown, so long as there are no personal details, eg address, disclosed
2 This sends a message to kids that all adults are predators, and should be feared. How healthy a message is that to give them?
3 It also, I have to say, looks very odd indeed and bit weird/sick to do this.
4 Why bother putting photos up at all?
5 School photos have been taken for decades, to show pride and achievement. Millions of us have survived having had our photo taken at school (and displayed), without being dragged off the street by some stalker. The worst that would happen would be the ridicule of one's contemporaries.
I am not alone in thinking this is all bollocks.
Shaun Kelly, spokesman for Children's charity NCH, said:
"The images shocked me, actually. What message is it giving?
It looks very, very odd. If you want to obscure children's faces you can obscure them with pixels.
We need to be cautious about taking images of children out of the media."
Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, was even more cutting:
"Every time a school takes silly measures, it says we see the world through the eyes of a paedophile.
They think that any innocent picture of school children will somehow be subverted and manipulated.
These pictures serve a very important purpose of giving children clear images of their experiences, something they can remember later in life.
Depriving ourselves of these experiences is not only irrational but serves no purpose whatsoever."
Rather bizarrely, the school has now taken down the pictures; a message on the website did say:
"Our newsletter section is undergoing maintenance. Back soon!"
However, that has now disappeared too.
I smell a cock up of the first magnitude!
Nanny has a sick mind, and she is trying to infect us with her fears and phobias.
Cann Hall Primary School (or rather those in charge of Cann Hall Primary School) well deserving Prats of The Week.
I realize that I'm flirting with madness even to ask this question, and I realize that you've made this point yourself, but, if you're going to obscure the children's faces by masking them behind row upon row of creepy, smiley faces, then what the fark is the point of posting the class photos on the school website!!
ReplyDeleteI fear that Nanny and her minions took too enthusiastically to the "acid" aspect of acid house music in the 80s.
This isn't just bollocks, it's unhinged, disturbingly so. And I don't think I'd want such "burn outs" (to use an expression from my own youth) teaching my kids.
If anyone seriously believes that there are hordes of paedophiles out there, all panting in anticipation of, at last, being able to do something weird (what?) with the pictures of the kids from Cann Hall Primary, ought they not also to understand that it's not the kids' faces that are the main paedophilic attraction? And can we now expect to see schoolkid's photos displaying 'Smiley Faces' covering each area that is likely to be attractive to some 'pervert'; from Hair Fetishists to Foot Fetishists and all parts in between?
ReplyDeleteWe live in interesting times Ladies and Gentlemen.
Grumpy,
ReplyDeleteIn Victorian times it was thought that wooden table and piano legs were "arousing", as such they were covered up.
I am surprised Nanny hasn't reintroduced that idea!
Ken
Ken,
ReplyDeletegive them time......
Probably the teachers are female peddling the idea that all men are evil sexual predators and , of course, women never have an evil sexual thought in their pretty little heads.
ReplyDeleteIf the end result is that the photos have been taken off the internet site I am all for it. The last thing I would ever wish to stumble upon on the net would be a group shot of some of Nanny's little neo-indoctrinates from Essex, or anywhere else for that matter.
ReplyDeleteAs for the alleged predators - I would imagine that the problem is often kept close to home or something approximating to home.
However the spread of the CCTV and public monitoring industry must open up a number of opportunities for would be malevolents. I have not heard of any announcements about curbing the spread of those empires. Indeed quite the opposite.
When I worked for a local newspaper, one story that broke was about a two-year-old raped and beaten and left to bleed to death.
ReplyDeleteTurned out it was her uncle.
A month later an old guy invited two kids into his flat; apparently he didn't do anything, but the kid's uncle kicked him to death.
Choked on his own teeth. His real teeth.
Grant and Pietr
ReplyDeletere your comments, you are right; my undertsanding of the ranking of risks is as follows
1 Relatives
2 State institutions (eg children's homes - eg recent news re Jersey)
3 Religious organisations (eg catholic schools in Ireland)
4 Strangers
I viewed the photograph in question on the Sky News website, I must say there is something very Steven King about it.
ReplyDeleteYou are all wrong! Nanny knows that there is a slavering peadophile lurking behind every tree and rock in the country, unless there is an institutional racist hiding there first or an islamphobe or homophobe.
ReplyDeleteNanny must protect us and our children and we must submit for our own good, why do you fools not see this! Why when I walk my kids to school I cover there heads with a sack because nanny has told me there are evil sick perverts staring at them all the time. They are not allowed out to play, or engage with any adult who cannot produce a CRB form in triplicate.
Granted they are a little pale in complexion from not getting out at all, and I have banned TV, internet radio and CD as pervs can get to them via these mediums, but I am at one with Nanny in securing their safety in a totally evil and threatening world.
Number 6
ReplyDeleteRe "when I walk my kids to school I cover there heads with a sack"
Are you Michael Jackson?
I don't want to leave myself open to abuse here, but if you twist their logic, could the hiding of the faces make a paedophile fantasise more about the image underneath?
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteMr Jackson is a pigment challenged person of undetermined sexual persuasion and as such you have no right comparing him to a hetrosexual person who is simply following nanny's orders to protect his children from the eyes of prying pervets.
Shame upon you!
Ken,
ReplyDeleteearlier you said, "the ranking of risks is as follows,
1 Relatives
2 State institutions (eg children's homes - eg recent news re Jersey)
3 Religious organisations (eg catholic schools in Ireland)
4 Strangers"
Once Nanny gets her way and introduces the 'all-singing, all-dancing' ID Card, how long do you reckon before every newly-arrived Irish ex-priest who has brought his family to stay with relatives while he takes a job at the local children's home is banged up by his local plod? Especially if he finishes his e-mails (as, sadly, so many do nowadays) with a nice little 'Smiley Face'?
At 4:20 AM, Anonymous number 6 said...
ReplyDelete"Ken,
Mr Jackson is a pigment challenged person of undetermined sexual persuasion and as such ...."
Surely you meant:
"Mr Jackson is a pigment of his own imagination ...."
Didn't you?