Now I am not too old to remember that when I was a young lad when it was my birthday, my mum would bake a cake and my friends would come over, cause mayhem and share the cake.Pretty normal stuff right?
Not in Nanny's world!
Olivia Morris, nine years old, wanted to share her granny's homemade chocolate birthday cake with her friends at Rockingham Infant and Junior School in Rotherham.
Not so fast Olivia!
The cake, an unctuous creation of chocolate decorated with Maltesers and Jellytots, was deemed "ungood" by the miserable followers of Nanny at her school.
The school banned her from sharing it with her friends, because it did not comply with healthy eating rules.
By all means promote healthy eating. However, part of the healthy eating concept should allow for the occasional treat. Unless you teach children self discipline, wrt having treats on occasions without "binging", they will never learn self control.
Needless to say this absurdly hard line policy will only put the children off "healthy" eating, and make the teachers look like miserable old fools.
The staff at the school should be thankful that this was a harmless birthday indulgence. Some less well brought up kids at that age would have been cracking open a can of cider and sniffing some glue in celebration.
Punishing Olivia for a harmless birthday treat sends entirely the wrong message.
BTW, the best birthday cake my mum ever made was a chocolate Swiss roll fashioned in the shape of a space rocket, covered in chocolate and set on a "moonbase".
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
I read this story yesterday on the Mail's website, I thought how times had changed.....Cakes were often brought in by pupils celebrating their birthdays for the rest of the class to enjoy.....I think the whole point of it was that it was special and was seen as a treat, not the norm.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of over zealous "child protection" policies being implemented by officious jobsworths that can neither think for themselves nor make a decision for themselves....Robots?
Of course, this week it is not called child protection; its called safeguarding....wtf?
What made me laugh was the fact Granny was blaming Jamie Oliver, to some extent she is correct to blame him but not for his ideas but for taking Nanny's shilling.
This is incredibly Scrooge-like-
ReplyDeleteand it's not even Christmas.
Wasn't one reason for banning the cake that it might have contained nuts or some other a substance that some child might have been allergic to? So then the parents could have sued the school for failing to carry out due safeguarding.
ReplyDeleteOr something like that.
This really takes the cake. There are obviously more than enough nuts running around that school without Granny having to put any more in.
ReplyDeleteDavid J Hilton said...
ReplyDelete"What a bunch of brain-dead fuckwits.
It is well and time we all tried to reclaim this country back from all these 'elf & safety, PC-loving despots."
Agreed.
David J Hilton went on to say ...
"Well, at least the next general election ain't too far away...."
This is true, but what earthly difference will it make?
Phillipa:'This is incredibly Scrooge-like-
ReplyDeleteand it's not even Christmas.'
It isn't? Have a look around Leeds town centre Pippa, the local council must have got the calendar mixed up ... either that or it's meant to be a Diwali celebration.
Probably Diwali as we only do Happy Holidays nopw that Christianity is sen as divisive. ;o)
Isn't it comforting to know that our children leave school barely literate but with an acute understanding of eating the 'right' foods, the importance of the 'right' exercise and that smokers are evil?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtejVB9YLmQ
What a sinister world we're now living in.
Jay
I don't think smokers are 'evil', but I do think they should have the politeness to confine their habit to consenting adults in private, even when not legally obliged to do so.
ReplyDeleteI say this with some feeling, having had my recent Italian holiday marred by the lack of consideration shown to me by a woman who I took along as my guest, and who scarcely ever had a cigarette out of her mouth, even at the meal table.
you read this blog and it becomes clear how the Nazis managed to co-opt large swathes of the population into committing the atrocities they did...
ReplyDelete"I don't think smokers are 'evil', but I do think they should have the politeness to confine their habit to consenting adults in private, even when not legally obliged to do so.
ReplyDelete--
I don't think non-smokers are 'evil', but I do think they should confine imposing their demand for non-smoking privately owned businesses into the hands of private business owners - who can then make the choice to either allow or disallow smoking on premises - instead of giving it to a Nanny/Bully-State government of bureaucrats.
That way, polite smokers and non-smokers alike would each have their personal free choice to make as to where to dine out and thus each individual would be free to choose - as each likes.
As it is now - well I hear smoking is banned in private vehicles and soon in private homes.
How impolite of an intrusion is that?
What David J Hilton and Grant say.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly is it that we now have thousands of kids with this/that/the other allergies? Never heard of allergies when I was a kid.
Ken, you make an excellent point about Nanny Hardlinism putting kids off Elfy Eatin. Just like a whole generation of kids have been made racist by experiencing positive discrimination (and even pandering) at school.
What was that name...? Fuckwits??
I don't like intrusive legal bans either, but I do think that smokers should recognise that indiscriminate smoking inflicts unpleasantness and sometimes toxic harm on those such as myself who have chronic chest complaints, and that all non-smokers are asking of them is a modicum of polite abstention.
ReplyDeleteI quite agree with your comments, Anticant.
ReplyDeleteAs far as banning a 9 year old from sharing her home-made birthday cake goes, the whole thing is outrageous! If our wonderful education system put as much effort into actually educating our children, instead of brainwashing them with this
'elf'n'safety and political correctness nonsense, the country as a whole would be far better placed to deal with the challenges of the 21st century, and not the economic basket case it has become in recent years.
anticant - please, be assured that smokers are not damaging your health - the dangers of passive smoking are a myth dreamt up by the likes of ASH to further the denormalisation of smoking. Don't take my word for it: critiques of the so-called evidence are readily available. People who find tobacco smoke unpleasant are only too willing to believe that the tobacco control lobby is not lying because 'danger' offers a reasonable justification for their personal dislike but in buying into the lies they are helping the bullies. The smoking ban is based on lies - just as the engineering of alcohol consumption will also now be based on lies.
ReplyDeleteSmokers do recognise that some non-smokers find the smell unpleasant. In the past there was give and take, with the non-smoker showing some tolerance and the polite smoker curbing their behaviour when appropriate. Now, it seems to be war, with non-smokers demanding that smokers confine their behaviour to within their own four walls, as if smoking is something shameful (exactly what the bullies want you to believe) and smokers, who are sick and tired of the intolerance and vilification, becoming defensive and belligerent.
Public smoking is just as much an issue of civil liberties as any other and there can't be any cherry-picking. If we want a less intrusive state we have to accept that freedom requires tolerance, compromise and good manners.
Jay
"If we want a less intrusive state we have to accept that freedom requires tolerance, compromise and good manners."
ReplyDeleteI quite agree with that, Jay, but not with your contention that the health risks from passive smoking are a 'myth'. Perhaps they are for some fortunate people, but if you have spent nearly three months in hospital - a fortnight of it in intensive care - with acute pneumonia and ongoing complications as I did in 2005-6, you pay heed when your doctors tell you to keep as far away from smokers as you reasonably can. I am even banned from public transport and crowded places because of infection risks due to a lowered immune system.
That is why my holiday experience was so upsetting, because the chain-smoking person I took along as my guest knew all this perfectly well but still persisted in lighting up continuously, even at the meal table before the menu had arrived let alone the food.
The end of a formerly pleasant friendship, I'm afraid. But my own fault, I suppose, for taking them along and expecting the compromise and good manners you rightly say are needed.
anticant - I'm sorry to hear of your ongoing health problems and I agree that, under the circumstances, your smoking friend should have shown more consideration.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid, though, that I don't much trust the medical profession. I spoke to one doctor about passive smoking who admitted that he had accepted the 'evidence' without evaluation because it wasn't his area of expertise (well, it wouldn't be since the evidence is entirely statistical rather than medical - it's also so poor that its flaws are glaring). Another doctor tried to convince me that active smoking was dangerous because there was correlation between smoking and lung cancer. There might also, of course, be correlation between lung cancer and any number of other factors but no-one is mentioning those. My, rather rambling, point is that the medical profession has its own reasons for choosing to accept that smoking (active or passive) is The Culprit of any number of ills when the research is just not rigorous enough to so conclude. Those who are in positions of trust are compromising their integrity, misrepresenting risks and ignoring factors which might be truly more important.
The depths to which the Department of Health is prepared to sink is exemplified in the current TV ad campaign in which children speak to camera, exhorting a parent to give up smoking because s/he might die. Smokers enjoy the same longevity as non-smokers (and the elevated risk of lung cancer is only marginally higher for smokers) and to use children as tools of propaganda (and frighten them at school by inflating the risks of smoking, as is happening) I think is odious.
Rant over!
Regards,
Jay
"Those who are in positions of trust are compromising their integrity, misrepresenting risks and ignoring factors which might be truly more important."
ReplyDeleteThat applies to the whole bleedin' lot currently 'running' this country. On the charitable assumption that they have got any integrity to compromise, that is.
Sam said
ReplyDelete"Ken, you make an excellent point about Nanny Hardlinism putting kids off Elfy Eatin."
No doubt about this, seen it with my own. "Five a day" features in practically everything they do at school - they sing songs about it, draw Venn diagrams about it in maths, get it rammed into their heads in PSHE. They now protest about things they would previously have eaten without a murmur. Enough is enough.