Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Nanny's Child Snatchers

Nanny's Child SnatchersI see that Nanny has resorted to using the full apparatus of the state to enforce her child centric policies, if this report (see below) in the Telegraph of the other day is accurate. I have reproduced it in full as, quite frankly, I initially assumed that they were writing about a third world dictatorship rather than the UK.

- Since when did the state start "sectioning" people for being "overprotective" of their children?

- Why are social workers allowed to behave in the same manner as the Gestapo?

- Why was Mr Jones' wife arrested, and the children snatched by the state?

- Why was the chief magistrate allowed to act as magistrate, given that he was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which Mr Jones was being detained?

- Why is ZaNuLabour still in office?

It is the most sickening story of state abuse of power that I have read for quite sometime, and wonder how long it will be before Nanny uses the powers of the state to start "sectioning" other people for alleged "delusions" (eg that the state is corrupt)?

The Telegraph:

"One of the most disturbing features of life in modern Britain has been the extraordinary powers given to social workers to seize children from their parents, too often – when those powers are abused – supported by the police and family courts. What makes this still more alarming is the legal bar on reporting these episodes, supposedly to protect the children, which again too often works to protect the social workers themselves at the expense of the children.

Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column.

Until six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.

The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children's safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest.

He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.

Mrs Jones was allowed to return to an empty home that evening. Mr Jones was permitted to attend court two days later, to hear the magistrates grant an interim order for the children to remain in the care of social services. Because he was "sectioned", he was not allowed to speak. The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained.

On May 28, Mr Jones appeared before a mental health tribunal which, after hearing all the facts relating to his case, gave him a complete discharge. He returned home to his wife and immediately contacted his MP, a local MEP, lawyers and others he thought might be able to help, one of whom set in train the investigation by Lord Monckton that led to this story appearing here.

Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday. The voluminous dossier setting out this extraordinary sequence of events not only includes lengthy statements from Mr and Mrs Jones but copies of detailed statements by the social worker and policewoman most closely involved in the case (along with a good deal more circumstantial evidence).

The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones's "delusional belief system" that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections. The only harm done to the children is their very evident unhappiness at being separated from their parents.

It must be hoped that the court this week recognises how grotesquely this tragic case has been blown out of all proportion, and rules that a loving family should immediately be reunited
."

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 booze. 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

51 comments:

  1. Number 610:26 AM

    Ken, social workers and uniformed social workers (formerly known as police) are both Nanny's Gestapo and Storm Troopers.

    What the fxxxx has this country become and how the hell are we going to get out of the socialist/politically correct hell hole we have allowed ourselves to be led into?

    ReplyDelete
  2. All stalinist states use mental health legislation to first shut up protestors and then to re-educate them.
    This case to me illustrates a complete and utter abuse of power and process.
    The UK's government used to condem such actions by foreign powers and now is one of the worst offenders.
    The real irony of the status of the UK as far as I am concerned is this; At a time when we are acting as a world policeman with the USA invading countries to impose democracy on those countries, we are at the same time, loosing our own democracy....Well done Labour!! Idiots!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:46 AM

    I hope all involved get sued to death and the media (well obvioulsy forget such pc pro Labour rags as the Mirror/Grandiud/Sindepent and aljabbc drag these scum through the gutter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Speenzman10:47 AM

    Hmmm, I didn't realise that Stephen Poliakoff's play 'She's Been Away' was a documentary about modern society, locking people up for being different is something that was done and we have now apparently risen above but I don't think even the morons who locked people up for being different would lock people up for looking after their children. If this is as reported a cursory glance into Mr Jones's background (let's face it, they're bound to have his entire life on a database somewhere) would reveal whether he has all the connections he claims and if he has, even if they think he's being a bit overcautious, there is no excuse for this kind of stinking jackbooted fascism.

    I'll tell you something, I'm 24 years old and would like to be a father sometime in the future but there are times when I have serious doubts about whether I want to bring a child up in this stupid, to quote Tonk's very accurate summing up of Britain today, "socialist/politically correct hell hole we have allowed ourselves to be led into". Databased from birth, brainwashed into fearing adults, rife paranoia, s**t education system, what an advertisement for modern life, and that's just the start.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Philippa11:08 AM

    Three words-government adoption targets.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I certainly am glad I'm not a parent or grandparent. What amazes me about this story is that the social workers have the power to detain the children after the ludicrous case against the parents was thrown out.

    It really is incredible that even this power-drunk utterly incompetent New Labour government would dream of passing such a law, and it should be repealed immediately.

    Sadly, all this fits with Frank Furedi's two sobering books "Culture of Fear" and Politics of Fear".

    We have already arrived at an Orwellian 1984 STASI State, but the gormless masses fed endless tripe and trivia by the (largely Murdoch-dominated) media are more worked up about the death of a talentless American weirdo than about the loss of our hard-won historic freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  7. microdave12:03 PM

    Ye Gods! I thought I was getting conditioned to all that's going on around us, but this really is the limit.

    I will mention it to anyone I hear claiming that we DON'T live in a police state.

    W/V intru - not far off "intrusion"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:17 PM

    Is this a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction after Baby P?

    Previously the social workers didn't bother to do their jobs, now they do them with such zeal they'll take anyone's kids away if the parents are even late with their dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tonk.1:47 PM

    Another side issue here, speaking as a former forensic psychiatric nurse, is that once one is sectioned, it becomes clear that the more you try to convince staff you are not mad, the more mad you appear.

    I recall an acute admission many years ago where the "patient" claimed to be employed by the government as a nuclear scientist and involved in secret operations relating to our nuclear defense programme. He appeared scruffy and unkempt and did sound mad. It took a few days of being treated before the military police came knocking at our hospital's door and confirmed his story was indeed true and they then took him away.



    I don't know what advice I would give people that find themselves sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, perhaps the best thing to say to the psychiatrist is that you do believe you are mad....I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:11 PM

    I must admit being qite shocked by the story and I have been reading this site for a few years now. I find it difficult to believe, and I am very sorry for the poor people that this has happened to - I myself would be livid to the extreme if this was done to me. This cuntry has gone to the dogs big time - like another poster said, I would not want to bring a child into this world and when I do think of becoming a mother, my mind turns to this sort of thing and I think again. Bring on the revolution!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous2:22 PM

    'Databased from birth, brainwashed into fearing adults, rife paranoia, s**t education system, what an advertisement for modern life, and that's just the start.'

    Speezman, you've pretty much nailed it.

    Fear is the key. Without fear, you can't have proper control.

    You generate fear by having 'bogeymen' (al-quaeda) and by using the instruments of the state to show your power.

    You also indoctrinate children so that your PC ideas infiltrate society. You create fear by threatening to remove the children of those who oppose you or by writing off those who oppose such ideas as extremists.

    You can't debate the value of spending large amounts of public money i.e. (taxpayers) on promoting homosexuality without being labeled 'homophobe'.

    You can't debate unlimited immigration without being a 'racist'.

    You can't debate genuine issues about child safety or the nonsensical responses of social services (such as this) without being labelled some kind of peado.

    And while you're doing all this, you make sure that the education system is shite enough that people can't think for themselves. Making them ready for the dole also ensures that you retain a tight fiscal control over them.

    It's all about creating a climate of fear.

    We're fucked.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lord of Atlantis2:29 PM

    microdave said...
    "Ye Gods! I thought I was getting conditioned to all that's going on around us, but this really is the limit.
    I will mention it to anyone I hear claiming that we DON'T live in a police state."

    Alas, my friend, if this is true, we clearly do, and these social w*****s and our 'wonderful' policemen would make the leaders of the SS, Gestapo, KGB and Stasi, not to mention the thugs keeping Mugabe in power, really proud! Those who sacrificed their lives to preserve freedom in this country must be really spinning in their graves!

    ReplyDelete
  13. microdave2:31 PM

    Tonk, this one doing the rounds might help:

    "The Bathtub Test"

    During a visit to the mental asylum, I asked the director "How do you determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalized?"

    "Well," said the director, "we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub."

    "Oh, I understand," I said. "A normal person would use the bucket because it's bigger than the spoon or the teacup."


    "No." said the director, "A normal person would pull out the plug. Do you want a bed near the window?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tonk.3:13 PM

    Microdave:

    Nice one:-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous, I agree with most of that - except that large amounts of public money are NOT spent on "promoting" homosexuality.

    Sounds as if you've got a touch of the "Sun", or maybe the "Mail".

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous3:47 PM

    Anticant,

    Public money is spent promoting homosexuality as a 'lifestyle choice through the strident 'gay rights.' lobby Personally I have nothing against gays so long as they don't try to use Nanny's (eg my) money to set themselves up as another special needs group.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What public money does the "strident gay rights lobby" get? Please specify, and give sources, recipients and amounts.

    Of course you have nothing against gays - but I bet you supported Section 28 and deplore official and unofficial efforts to tackle homophobic bullying and name-calling in schools. Do you realise that many kids know they are gay from a very early age, and some suffer acute misery because of homophobia.

    People who have "nothing against" minorities rarely want them to be treated equally, or even fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous5:28 PM

    ^-- So you advocate the Government creating "special victims" ? Everyone is bullied, and name called during school but because someone is "gay" they should be protected? This is the attitude that got you idiots under the Governments feet in the first place. One rule of law, for all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear ignorant and abusive lady, please don't call me an idiot! I shall not respond in kind, although sorely tempted.

    No - I don't advocate the government, or anyone else, creating "special victims" (whatever they are). I am quite simply against ALL bullying and victimisation in schools as well as in society at large, and if you don't think teachers, parents, and the government - so far as it can - are in duty bound to put a stop to that you have a very strange idea of what education should be about.

    Needless to say you don't provide any chapter and verse for your absurd fiction that large sums of public money are being spent to "promote" (whatever that means) homosexuality as a lifestyle. Homophobes like you never do, because you can't. You moan about being dubbed a homophobe because you protest about something that isn't happening, which simply proves that you are one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous6:02 PM

    That is because I'm neither a lady, or the person that originally bought the subject into question, just someone throughly disgusted with yet another liberal whining about "classes" of people that think are special and should be protected from harm. I'm sorry you couldn't "crack the code" of what the prefix "special" meant in "special victim." Here's a hint: it means a victim that is more important than another.

    If you think that bullying, and name calling can be solved by even MORE government involvement you're a moron. This blog content if full of stories about the same sort of liberal hand-wringing "won't someone please think of the --" busybodies like yourself, why not go work on world peace, I'm sure its even more obtainable than a world where children don't ridicule each other, pinhead.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That doesn't merit a serious reply, but whichever anonymous you are why don't you substantiate the allegation that large amounts of public money are being spent on promoting homosexuality as a liofestyle? Peoples' opinions, however ill-informed, are their own business, but distortions of fact - in plain terms, lies - aren't.

    Re bullying, I'm not talking about mere ridicule, but about prejudice and bigotry which children imbibe from people like you and inflict upon their peers.

    As for your infantile name-calling, why don't you rinse your mouth out with carbolic soap and grow up. You are evidently incapable of civilised debate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anticant:

    You challenged another commentor over the funding of gay promotion:-

    http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/free/Mayor-in-Gay-Pride-funding.5362346.jp

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/extra-funding-for-gay-pride-from-a-dup-ministry-13438338.html

    These are just a couple of quickies from google search for gay pride funding.

    I have seen significant sums of money being granted to promote 'gay rights'.

    I have no problem with gay, lesbian, transgender or straight people but feel very strongly that it is their business and I don't want it shoved in my face or to find myself funding it's promotion as so often happens!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous6:35 PM

    Why do you not disprove that assertion yourself instead of insisting random people on the Internet are somehow responsible for researching another persons opinion, you lazy cretin?

    Did you get your wittle feelings hurt? Perhaps you should petition the Government to "make people nice on the Internet" instead of rocking in a corner, with a box of tissues in a traumatized state.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Working Dad - You may have noticed that the mayor in question announced he was going to cancel the event, and then backtracked when he realised that the sum involved was very small - about £3,000 - and that the town shopkeepers would lose business.

    I still ask you to say what you mean by "significant sums". I think you will find they are small compared to the amounts doled out to, for instance, the Muslim community who are, of course, virulently homophobic and clamour for Sharia law, which prescribes punishments such as stoning, lashing, and hurling off high buildings.

    I hope you agree that Sharia law in Britain would not be a good idea.

    What voluntary non-government organisations and groups do you think SHOULD receive public money? If, as I suspect, your answer is "none", I hope that includes religious institutions and 'faith schools'.

    Anonymous - you are beneath contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous6:49 PM

    Go polish your jackboots, you statist lickspittle.

    ReplyDelete
  26. David J Hilton7:32 PM

    This well and truly beggars belief.

    Nanny & ZaNu Labour have really surpassed themselves here....

    ReplyDelete
  27. This thread has gone way off topic but it is interesting.

    A few observations:
    Homosexual people are also tax payers and therefore some of their tax money should be spent on causes close to their hearts. There are many things that my tax money is spent on, which if I were given a choice, I would prefer it was not. Eg The EUSSR, PFI etc etc.
    Homosexual couples actually tend to pay more tax compared to us straight people, as both usually work and don't have one partner having time off to have children.
    It is wrong to promote ANY sexual matters to young schoolchildren; I refer to those at infants and junior schools, it is my opinion that nothing to do with any form of sexual relationships should be taught to such young children.
    Equality laws seldom change people's attitudes or in other words you can't legislate what people think. As those of my generation die out, I am sure homosexuality will be more accepted, however, as shown by some posters on here, if there is a perception that one group or another is deemed more precious or important compared to another, bigots can then use this perception against that group.

    The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, does not hate homosexuals; The church loves them but, because it goes against biblical teaching, it hates what it deems to be a sin.
    It should be noted that the Catholic church also deems any sexual contact outside of marriage to be a sin so the homosexual and hetrosexual people are treated the same. If a person is not a believer I cannot see why they would worry what a religious group thinks about anything. I do appreciate that if Islam ever got a hold in this country, then homosexuals would have a major problem; I don't believe you need to have similar fears if ever we became a Christian or Catholic country again.

    I have met nice homosexuals as well as nasty ones, the same goes for hetrosexuals. We should not judge all people on the basis of stereotypes. I must also say that some of the most unchristian people I have met have been deeply religious Christians. (or claimed to be)

    I am opposed to all forms of bullying, be that against a minority by a majority or a particular ethic group and I am also opposed to the bullying that some single issue groups carry out in the name of equality.

    We need to accept that some people are different and we should adopt an attitude of live and let live.
    I do not like the use of the suffix "Phobe" as this means an irrational fear. I feel the left have used such language in an attempt to stifel debate. In my opinion, we should allow bigots to put their case as once out in the open, everyone will see how daft many of these bigoted views actually are, by stopping them from having their say plays into their hands as they feel that group has indeed special status.
    Equality must mean equality, I doubt that it can ever be achieved though as people are different and have different qualities and abilities. In my view, positive discrimination is wrong as it is de facto discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks for such a sensible, adult comment, Tonk. I entirely agree with almost all that you say. Of course sexual behaviour of any type should not be promoted or encouraged among schoolchildren, but they do need to be taught the facts of reproduction, and also that there is a spectrum of sexual attitudes and emotions which should be respected as long as others are not unwillingly involved or hurt. Parents are not always able or prepared to do this, and so schools do have a role.

    There is no specifically sexual ethic: how to treat others in sexual and emotional relationships is part and parcel of learning how to treat others with respect, tolerance and dignity in all aspects of life. Those who have posted here who seem to think that teaching these things is no part of a school's job, but should be left entirely to parents and chance, are apparently happy for society to function like a jungle.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people ARE phobic, and paranoid too, and a lot of the hatred and anger expressed on blogs (sometimes including this one) is irrational. Witness that I simply asked for facts and figures about repeated allegations that "large quantities of public money are spent on promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle" and promptly had filthy personal abuse heaped upon me by anonymous ranters.

    If the Catholic church, and all other churches, practised the fine principles they preach, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately they don't, and many self-styled religious people are eager to fuel prejudice, hatred, and cruelty. Somehow I don't think Jesus Christ would have wanted much to do with them.

    I hope that in future we can discuss this, and other contentious subjects, on Ken's generally admirable blog without descending to personal insults.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  29. skydog6:45 AM

    Tonk:'I do appreciate that if Islam ever got a hold in this country, then homosexuals would have a major problem'

    Just homosexuals Tonk? Try:

    ''I do appreciate that if Islam ever got a hold in this country, then anyone who isn't a Muslim would have a major problem''

    ReplyDelete
  30. Islam is already getting a hold on this country, and if demographic trends continue as they are now it will have an increasingly tight grip within twenty years. Multiculturalism - the false doctrine that all belief systems are of equal value and can all be accommodated in a free society - is intellectual garbage and political poison. Plenty of people in the 1930s thought that Hitler could and should be accommodated. How wrong they were.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous8:27 AM

    The statistic is often quoted that every Labour government has ended with a failed economy, after which a Conservative government has been re-elected and spent the subsequent years putting things back together again.

    A few months ago there was even a Labour politician quoted, joking to one of his Conservative friends: “Well it looks like you guys are going to have to come in and clear up the mess again.”.

    However, this time, things are qualitatively different. There won't be a quick fix. Future generations are going to feel the impact of this government's policies much more intensely than this generation.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The problem is that future generations won't have any standard of comparison with former times. They will never have known anything different. They will take Nanny's endless interference in their lives for granted.

    What is so frightening about the story in Ken's original post is that the teachers, social workers and police involved have been brainwashed into believing that they behaved in a reasonable manner, instead of realising that what they did was totally OTT and unprofessional.

    ReplyDelete
  33. the man from UNCLE9:53 AM

    Anticant,

    Any sum of tax payer money doled out to specific 'disadvantaged' groups be they gays or muslims is wrong. Such groups then get on board the 'grievance and 'uman rights' gravy tain and use nanny's laws to dictate to the majority what they can say and think.

    I bet if decided to hold a hetrosexual pride march not only would I be barred from public money, and told that my sexuality is my own affair, and probably accused of being a nazi too boot.

    As to the assertion that someone who claims that they have nothing against gays, who are you to judge the veracity of their statement? Another self-rightous liberal I am afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Number 69:54 AM

    Nanny's laws are not child centric, they are anti-human, in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Folks, I appreciate this subject has got all of our blood pressures raised and a lively debate has ensued; but please could we refrain from calling each other names.

    Nanny is meant to be the target of our opium/oprium/obrium/whatever (I can't be bothered to look up the spelling, but you know what I mean:)) not each other.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  36. not a bad anonymous10:59 AM

    I would just like to point out that I am the first 'anonymous' on this thread, not the one that starting calling people names! Probably not important to anyone, but I felt I had to point that out!

    ReplyDelete
  37. the man from AUNTIE11:17 AM

    A hetrosexual (sic) or metrosexual pride march might be rather fun. I wonder who would turn up?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Lord of Atlantis11:58 AM

    Tonk. said...
    "Homosexual people are also tax payers and therefore some of their tax money should be spent on causes close to their hearts. There are many things that my tax money is spent on, which if I were given a choice, I would prefer it was not. Eg The EUSSR, PFI etc etc."

    A very good point, although I would question whether ALL taxpayers should have public money spent on the cause close to their hearts: e.g. rapists or paedaphiles, for example.

    Tonk also said:
    "It is wrong to promote ANY sexual matters to young schoolchildren; I refer to those at infants and junior schools, it is my opinion that nothing to do with any form of sexual relationships should be taught to such young children."

    I quite agree. I hope I don't come across as looking through rose tinted spectacles, but in my humble opinion, in an ideal world, which we are by nomeans living in, such matters should be the responsibility of parents.

    Tonk also said:
    "Equality laws seldom change people's attitudes or in other words you can't legislate what people think."

    Too true neither is it desirable to do so.

    Tonk also said:
    "The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, does not hate homosexuals; The church loves them but, because it goes against biblical teaching, it hates what it deems to be a sin.
    It should be noted that the Catholic church also deems any sexual contact outside of marriage to be a sin so the homosexual and hetrosexual people are treated the same. If a person is not a believer I cannot see why they would worry what a religious group thinks about anything."

    I am not a Catholic myself, but am a practicing Christian, albeit not a very good one, as I must admit. However, this sums up my position as well. I too oppose ALL bullying, be that against a minority by a majority or a particular ethic group or by issue or minority groups, supposedly in the name of equality.
    As you rightly say, Tonk, equality must mean equality, although I too doubt that it can ever be achieved for the same reasons you give. And yes,so-called 'positive discrimination' is discrimination, pure and simple.

    the man from UNCLE said...
    "Anticant, Any sum of tax payer money doled out to specific 'disadvantaged' groups be they gays or muslims is wrong. Such groups then get on board the 'grievance and 'uman rights' gravy tain and use nanny's laws to dictate to the majority what they can say and think.
    I bet if decided to hold a hetrosexual pride march not only would I be barred from public money, and told that my sexuality is my own affair, and probably accused of being a nazi too boot."

    That is exactly what would happen. You would almost certainly be prosecuted for inciting hatred too!

    Number 6 said...
    "Nanny's laws are not child centric, they are anti-human, in my book."

    They certainly are!

    Ken said...
    "Folks, I appreciate this subject has got all of our blood pressures raised and a lively debate has ensued; but please could we refrain from calling each other names."

    Well said, Ken. On a site like this, there is bound to be a diversity of opinions, but we should respect the views of others, even if we disagree with them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Julius Caesar12:04 PM

    the man from AUNTIE said...
    A hetrosexual (sic) or metrosexual pride march might be rather fun. I wonder who would turn up?
    11:17 AM

    Nobody from nuLabour!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Tonk.1:05 PM

    Anticant:

    Yes children should be taught about the mechanics of reproduction but again, I would say in secondary school, not primary school. I agree with Lord of Atlantis that basic sexual education, in an ideal world, should be taught by the parents, however we don't live in an ideal world.
    If we did restrict sex education to just the mechanics of reproduction, then it follows homosexuality would not be mentioned:-)
    I feel that once kids are about fourteen of fifteen years of age then the sex education syllabus could be widened to talk about other orientations and attractions. I would suggest in these circumstances, the primary role of the teacher would be to inform, not promote any particular orientation.

    Lord of Atlantis raised a good point about whether money should be spent on some special interests and I would agree with him; A common good test should be applied and clearly, neither pro rape nor paedophilia should be promoted and have money spent on them. This point however raises an interesting debate in itself; When I was young, being a practicing homosexual was a crime and frowned upon in much the same way as peadophiles are today.....I AM NOT LINKING HOMOSEXUALITY TO PAEDOPHILIA IN ANY WAY AS I KNOW, FROM A PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE, THE TWO ARE NOT LINKED, however what would people's views be if, as was the case in the early 1960s with homosexuality given its then criminal status,peadophilia ceased to be a criminal offence....Would people today still be predjudiced against those that practiced such things? If the media and schools then promoted it and said it was an acceptable lifestyle choice and was equal to any other, would it take a generation for it to become acceptable. I think it is difficult to change people's attitudes about things that society have branded wrong. As I previously stated, once my, and reading your blog Anticant, your generation has died out, I suspect the predjudice against homosexuals will too. In my view, too many militant homosexuals make their sexuality their main identity; I attended a diversity course before I retired and the presenter stood up at the start of the course and said my name is John and I am gay. I stood up and said my name and that I shag my wife....He got really angry and banged on about my sexual preferences being irrelavent, I retorted that his orientation must be too and that surely he was more than a sexuality. On my ward I had two homosexual male nurses and several black South African nurses, I never saw them as a colour nor an orientation, I only saw them as people.....I feel to many single issue groups do make too much about their single issue and, in effect, do their cause a disservice if not, real harm. Again it comes down to the public's perception of how a "special group" are treated compared to the rest of us.
    An assault is an assault, it matters not what the motivation is, it is still an assault and should be prosecuted as such....The Offences Against The Persons Act protected all people from assault and a new special law to give extra special status to any group, be that based on colour, religion or sexuality was not needed; It is laws like this that gets people's backs up and gives fuel to those bigots that want to blame a certain group for all the ills in the world.
    I hope this makes sense as I feel sometimes I am clumsy with my words and language.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Julius Caesar1:27 PM

    If it is necessary to include sex education lessons in schools, because parents are unable or unwilling to do so, surely we should be teaching more than the mechanics of reproduction. It is absolutely crucial that they are also taught about their responsibilities, a dirty word under nuLabour's 'uman rights philosophy, and responsible sexual practices.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Tonk.1:33 PM

    JC:

    Yes I agree, responsibility should also be taught, what about morality, should that be taught and if so, who's morality?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Anticant,

    Re: your comment on my post...

    If publicly funded 'gay pride' marches aren't spending public money promoting a minority group, then i really don't know what its.

    Tonk makes a valid point about taxpayers, but if we all got to spend money on things 'close to our heart' then there would be nothing left for the necessities. That's all public money should be spent on.

    And i don't read the papers.... as an FYI, (previous posts under anon were not from myself - i should really create a profile).

    Agree with your comments re: Islam. The principles of Da'Wa are well underway in this country. We would do well to be concerned at its spread.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Tonk, Julius, Lord of Atlantis and Anon. I never said children shouldn’t be taught values. Of course they should. But there are no specifically sexual values, other than the Golden Rule of not doing anything to anyone else that you wouldn’t wish done to yourself, taking responsibility for your own actions, and respecting others as equal human beings. It is about understanding difference; not about telling children all the graphic details of intimate behaviour. I went to a school whose motto was “Always a Gentleman”. It sounds a bit old fashioned now, but I think it’s a good guide to life.

    Where I differ from Tonk is that 14 or 15 is too late to teach children that sexual diversity exists – I know many gay people who say that they knew their own natures by the time they were 10 or 11, and not through any seduction or ‘grooming’ by an adult or older child. It is that age group where the ignorant bullying and name-calling is most hurtful.

    Unfortunately as you say we don’t live in an ideal world, and some parents are unfit to have children, let alone to rear them. But they are the exception not the rule, and Nanny’s mistake is to regard ALL parents as probably inadequate and delinquent. It is the blown up hysteria about paedophilia which has resulted in parents being treated as potential criminals without any proof, as in this case, and being banned from school sports days in case some ‘unsavoury characters’ gain access to kids. This is paranoid. I do not believe for one moment that the country is infested with predatory paedophiles prowling every neighbourhood. Most cases of child abuse and cruelty occur within the family, as with Baby P.

    As for spending public money on minority interests and ‘diversity’, that has been the policy of governments of all parties for many years in the interests of social cohesion. I would be the first to agree that a lot of this money is mis-spent, but I don’t think we will deal with the issue effectively by singling out those groups we happen to dislike. Voluntary groups of all types simply cannot raise all the money they need to survive, and if all government grants to the voluntary sector were axed the consequence would be an even heavier drain upon the public purse.

    And of course I agree too that people who make their sexual identity the defining feature of their existence are pathetic. I certainly don’t think that my sexuality, important though it is to me, is the most interesting or significant thing about me.

    As a bleeding-heart liberal (according to some of the posters here), I am utterly opposed to ‘hate speech’ laws, and think that everyone’s point of view, however obnoxious, should have the right to be aired. Free speech is the bedrock of a free society, however much Nanny purses her lips against it. But as Ken says, let’s stick to the issues and not be personally rude to one another.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Tonk.3:40 PM

    Anticant:

    I agree that often people are only opposed to public funding of organisations they don't like.

    A few years ago, as I recall, the RNLI were refused funding from the lottery because they did not rescue enough ethnic minorities; It is this type of "policy decision" that gives fuel to the bigot's fire.
    Some may say that lottery money is not public funding and indeed, as it was originally set up by John Major,it was not but, Labour changed the law and the lottery, in my opinion, has become the government's slush fund, the Olympic funding is a prime example.

    What I find mathematically confusing about the lotto is this, the prize fund seems to be decreasing but the number of winners that have to share the top prize seems to be increasing...Odd that isn't it as staistically, one would expect the number of winners to decrease if the number of tickets sold decreases, unless of course a greater proportion of the overall income is being diverted.

    With regards to the age that kids should be taught about sexual diversity, I shall have to bow to your greater knowledge, as I can only think back to my own level of maturity and my own levels of sexual interest at 14 or 15 years of age....I still maintain that such lessons and information should be restricted to secondary school kids unless specifically requested by the youngster via say a school counsellor. It is a very difficult one to call and I suspect there is no one fits all solution to it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous3:50 PM

    Anticant:

    You said: “I hope that in future we can discuss this ... without descending to personal insults.

    You also said: “the gormless masses fed endless tripe and trivia by the (largely Murdoch-dominated) media are more worked up about the death of a talentless American weirdo

    I detect double standards!



    'not a bad anonymous':

    Most had probably already worked out that you were the good Anonymous, not the bad Anonymous.

    I'm also one of the Anonymouses in the thread but I'm not going to say which one.

    Generally speaking, and from what I've worked out so far, there's a number of reasons why people use the Anonymous label, but most fall into one or more of the following categories:



    1. Couldn't-Give-a-Toss Anonymous.

    This Anonymous generally doesn't care who thinks who said what.
    If someone thinks they said it - fine. If they think someone else said it - fine also.


    2. Couldn't-Give-a-Toss-Lazy Anonymous.

    This one exhibits all the characteristics of Anonymous 1 but in addition, finds that clicking on the 'Anonymous' radio button generally requires less effort than typing in a fake name each time.


    3. Flaming Anonymous.

    This Anonymous seems to think the Internet was invented specifically for the purpose of hurling gratuitous abuse at others, whilst hiding behind the safety of an anonymous identify from the comfort of their own bedroom. They know that if they behaved that way on the streets they'd probably have developed a permanent limp by now and be unable to walk without the aid of crutches.


    4. Symbiotic Anonymous.

    This Anonymous gets some curious amusement from letting on to be one of the other Anonymouses. Sometimes they can pull it off, sometimes they can't. Where they can't, it's usually because they're from another country and haven't yet sussed all the nuances of English English. On at least one occasion, they've been responsible for all Hell breaking loose.


    5. Pavlovian Anonymous.

    This Anonymous reckons, most human behaviour can be modelled on Pavlov's dogs. In the same way as Pavlov's dogs jumped to conclusions as soon as they heard the sound of a bell, likewise most humans have a desire to stick a label on everyone they meet. That way, their lives become much easier. Rather than having to listen to, and think anew about, what someone says, they can take the easier approach of turning to the label to decide what they think they should have said.


    6. Not-a-Bad-Anonymous.

    Little is known about this one. It may be a new species.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous3:50 PM

    anticant :
    I see "homophobic bullying" is a subject matter close to your heart. So were you called a "sausage jockey" and a "poof" all through school? or did it start at a certain age?

    ReplyDelete
  48. "It is wrong to promote ANY sexual matters to young schoolchildren."
    Quite right, and that was the reason for the perfectly sensible Section 28, which simply banned the promotion of homosexuality (the use of children's reading books such as "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin" or "Somebody-or-other has two mummies" (or was it daddies?). Section 28 was nothing to apologize for.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous5:39 PM

    You're wise to ignore him Anticant.

    His parents probably have no idea what he's up to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Priscilla Queen of Brighton7:42 AM

    In what is an alledegdly free society homosexuals can declare "we're here, we're queer get used to it" which smacks me as a little strident and possibly hetrophobic - can I now plead for some money as an oppresed minority, who was terribly frightened by such language? Or is it only the 'minorities' deemed worhty by nanny and her hand maiden bleeding heart liberals who qualify? If so, I imagine some who post here would love to be on the panel making the decision, so long as the panel did not have any 'weirdo Americans' on it perchance.

    ReplyDelete
  51. General Sherman9:29 AM

    Anticant feels free to air his prefudiced anti American sentiment "talentless American weirdo" for a man who most reasonable people would agree suffered from mental problems. Indeed I recall Michael Parkison explaining that he turned down a very lucrative exclusive interview with one Mr Jackson on the grounds that it "was like talking to a child, the man could not mentally defend himself. Why not got the full hog and use the langauge of the Murdoch press and 'Wacko'oh I forgot you doubtless read only the 'quality press' probably the Guardain eh as in your arrogant and condescending view anyone who reads the Murdoch press is part of the 'gormless masses.'

    Thus,in true Nu Labour Nanny sytle Anticant airs his own prejudices which he arrogantly assumes we must share, whilst squealing with reghteous idnigation when one of his own pet minorities (he does seem to have a bit of thing for homosexuals) is criticised even midly for receiving public funds.

    Hypocrite and a sucker who perpetautes the Nanny state at the same time.

    ReplyDelete