Nanny has two great obsessions:
1 Obesity
2 Children (her acolytes are forever shrilly screeching "think of the children!")
Combine the two obsessions, and you have a deadly and poisonous cocktail.
Nanny and her chums in from our much "respected" local authorities (The Local Government Association - LGA) have let it be known that "dangerously overweight" children will have to be taken from their parents and put into care.
Errmm...isn't that kind of a Nazi type of action? The Nazis in occupied countries took children of "Germanic appearance" back to Germany for "Germanification".
Didn't we send people to their deaths to fight against this sort of thing over 60 years ago?
The LGA has predicted that social services teams would have to take drastic action to improve the health of seriously overweight children. In the view of the Gestapo from the LGA, very "fat" children are victims of "parental neglect".
In the view of the LGA, based on their "logic", social services would have to intervene "more and more" with obese children. The LGA also stated that councils would have to take action against parents who put their children's health at risk, and take the fattest into "care".
David Rogers, the LGA spokesman on public health, said:
"Councils are increasingly having to consider taking action where parents are putting children's health in real danger.
Councils would step in to deal with an undernourished or neglected child, so should a case with a morbidly obese child be different?
If parents place children at risk through bad diet and lack of exercise is it right for a council to keep the child's health under review?
It is vital that councils, primary care trusts and the NHS work with parents to ensure children don't end up dangerously overweight in the first place.
There needs to be a national debate about the extent to which it is acceptable for local authorities to take action in cases where the children's welfare is in jeopardy."
Precisely how will this help the children?
The psychological damage to the child, as he/she is forcefully removed from his/her parents, would massively outweigh any short term possible benefit of weight reduction.
The morbidly obese tend to use food as a "comfort", increase their stress levels by snatching them from their parents and they will simply eat more.
How can people who live in a democracy and claim to believe in a democracy, even contemplate such action?
This proposal stinks!
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
At the end of the day, it appears that Nanny wants to take control of all the nation's children, so she can brainwash them into her agenda and way of thinking, whilst the adults just work till they drop, in order to feed Nanny's appetite for more and more taxation to pay for the ever increasing numbers Nanny employs to "manage" the population......Smells of "Common Purpose" to me having visited their website and conducted a little research into the nature of the organisation....My thanks go out to Dixon of Dock Green (Evening All) for bring this sinister organisation to my attention.
ReplyDeleteNaturally Nanny will have to recruit some fat police, or child health well being monitors as she will call them.
ReplyDeleteSchools will be visited, people will be stopped in the streets and 'advised' on how best to reduce Tommy's weight. Then, the yellow jacketed (nanny loves yellow jackets must be a fetish) will move to forcefully weigh fat kids - remember plastic plod hauling kids out of cars to measure them to fit EU approved safety seat rules - non compliance will automatically brand you a child abuser on par with Gary Glitter, a fine will follow, then your children will be removed by a transgendered guardian reading social worker until they reach their 'target' weight.
You have been warned.
David Rogers and his ilk should be taken into protective custody.
ReplyDeleteTo protect us from them.
" Councils would step in to deal with an undernourished or neglected child, ... " - an LGA spokesman.
ReplyDeleteAnd that woman wearing a hijab currently on trial in Wolverhampton, along with her husband, for MURDERING one of her children by starving her to death? Along with cruelty charges for starving the other children she had?
Social workers not intervening because, of course, it might have harmed 'Community Relation'
This will be law for Whiteys and Christians i.e. people not likely to riot and murder people.
Can anyone give me a cheap rent on a warehouse to store all the stakes I'll need when we get around to sorting out this crowd?
People love this. Being told by do-gooders how to live their lives, raise their children.Now listen to your betters, people. They know better than you.
ReplyDeleteDebbie in the US
Naturally 'community cohesion' must come before actually saving children from being starved to death by people who adhere to a barabaric code of conduct disguised as a religion.
ReplyDeleteAny social worker will tell you that, before they go back to the important business of munching their organic mung bean breakfast bar, reading the Guardian and penciling in the next date for the commiunity understanding action group meeting.
Saddest thing is they all say they support women's rights, children's rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc etc etc but defend the one group that tramples on all of those rights and shouts about it as well.
The morbidly obese tend to use food as a "comfort", increase their stress levels by snatching them from their parents and they will simply eat more.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. Their food will be strictly moderated. They will eat as much as they are given and NO MORE and there will be no "evil" snacks. We should all think about the fact that these new "healthy" diets put about by government officials usually involve serious restricting and not giving children the vital things they need to grow. These children will suffer horrendously for this....
When you say "defend the one group that tramples on all of those rights and shouts about it as well" you mean CRINGE before them.
ReplyDeleteYou know when you hear central or local government use that well-worn cliché "there needs to be a national debate" that they have already decided what needs to be done and the last thing they want is any debate.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a debate, it usually by a collection of minority pressure groups of the "organic mung bean breakfast bar" eater types (thanks for that image No.6), who are vicariously reliving the excitement of the October Revolution or reading Erich Honecker's A-Z guide to inept totalitarian bureaucracy. Then the full weight of a crank's eye view of socialist paradise descends upon us.
Having put the boot into smoking it is inevitable that the zealots and puritans who need a crusade to tell other people how to lead their lives in order to bring some meaning to their own delusional, 40 years out of date East German emulating, Guardianista existence turn to the evils of drinking and eating.
What next I wonder, now that the toe of the ethnic, faux-leather sandal is well and truly through the door? Forty years ago these pot-smoking wastrels were paving the way for Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot by undermining the governments of the West with their right-on crap. Now they are the governments of the West.
As ever I am not one to be contrary but I can see some benefits in the concept of removing children (why stop at 'obese'?) from the feckless parents and re-educating them in the equivalent of a State Boarding School. Such schools used to be 'Approved' if memory serves.
ReplyDeleteEconomically the provision of gruel should be good for the waistline and the budget, especially if the parent's benefits can be cut in the absence of child.
One might point to the potential for crime reduction, early training for cannon fodder for the armed forces and, perhaps more importantly, the 'boarding' model should help MI6 with its targets for sexual orientation recruitment related to employment diversity.
I was just contemplating what else to add to my list when I stumbled upon a piece with remarkably similar observations, in many but not all ways, coming to the problem form an entirely eco-sensitive angle - effectively directly opposed to my own standing on the matter. It funny how some many good ideas unite those of a more controlling nature.
I decided that, in essence, the ideas were close enough to mine to provoke thought, thus saving me the trouble of seeking verbal creativity on a Friday night.
I commend the article to you in the spirit in which it was written.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5611/
Grant
Nahh
ReplyDeleteThen the children realize that they can get the parents in trouble just by overeating (parents who have their children taken away will DEFINITELY have to go to classes to get them back) so the lil lovelies will just eat all the junk food at their free school lunches or get food from friends if their parents fail to please them adequately.
All of this is to destroy the family and of course the Christian family in particular.
California is the trendsetter in child-parent inversion.
well all i can say why does that fat fuckhead who is running show shed a few pounds of his big ass before dictating to us. Just have a look at the buckets of lard running the circus called the UK, they all need to be taken into care, preferably soviet style as they seem to love that system and watch the pounds drop off. Right im taking the kids to KFC
ReplyDeleteWasn't removing children from their parents into communal state boarding schools to be educated as 'philosophers' one of Plato's ideas?
ReplyDeleteAll this emphasis on childrens' rights as opposed to adults is turning the present generation of kids into untouchables who are irresponsible and dangerous as well as obnoxious.
Children need firm boundaries as they are growing up. All these prodnosey social worker jobsworths are the products of the 1980s Thatcherite 'Me' generation.
The late great Barbara Wootton wrote a pioneering book, "Social Science and Social Pathology", in the 1950s in which she remarked that judging from the way some social workers treated their clients, it was surprising they didn't get their faces slapped twice daily. Heaven knows what she would say if she were alive today!
how can you blame Thatcher for the social workers? I feel it the other way round, todays social workers are the ones who went against the me generation and became misguided in the "social" needs of individuals, its because of ridiculas liberal nazis that we have reached this stage, kids need hard knocks to make them adults. I had a shitty childhood (born in 1970 so thatcher had quite the infulence on me) and frankly its done me no harm, and i was a fat kid who put up with the piss taking for years but you wont hear me blubbing
ReplyDeleteBut Nanny emulates Baldric of Blackadder with "I have a cunning plan."
ReplyDeleteNow that many playgrounds, parks, etc have been closed by her as unsafe, Nanny proposes having your children play in those large open areas spotted about the country - car parks!
*Let children play in car parks, say health chiefs after hundreds of school sports fields are axed*